# DS9-Better of the trek shows?



## Darthjaye (Jun 28, 2005)

Was the last season and a half the best that all of the trek series had to offer in recent time?  Really liked the writing as it developed and had a nice finale that actually made sense for why the show would end.  War was over.  Everyone had gone their seperate ways in story arcs that made sense.  The main character ascends.  The good guys (the Federation) weren't always so good (the virus the release on the Founders after making a stance in all the series about outlawing the use of bio weapons).  It wasn't the accidental storyline where they inadvertantly did it, they were downright devious at times.  Although it initially bugged me that they added their super secret organization (can't remember the name but William Sadler was the apparent head of said group).  Every character became a little more interesting.   What was your take on this series?  What did you ultimately like or hate about it?


----------



## JimAde (Jun 28, 2005)

I agree DS9 is the best of the Trek series.  While hardly up to Babylon 5 standards of sneakiness, the characters were far from perfect.  And they frequently failed to get along with each other in more serious ways than just irritating one another.  Good stuff.

The Federation of DS9 is a lot like the Federation in my own various long-running Trek campaigns.  Basically benevolent, but able and willing to be underhanded when the situation called for it.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Jun 28, 2005)

I actually think the Golden Age of DS9 was the end of Season 2 and beginning of Season 3 -- before things got too convoluted -- but I can certainly agree that DS9 in general was the best written of all the Trek shows.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 28, 2005)

DS9 is certain in my top 2 Star Trek series. It depends on my mood in TV viewing whether it or the original series is #1. 

When I want to watch a set of episodes about general sci-fi ideas without caring about a static backdrop, I'd watch TOS and favor that series over the others. Some of those sci-fi ideas may seem quaint and outdated today, but some of them are still pretty fascinating. And TOS certainly was a series for exploring ideas.
If I'm in a mood to watch longer running story-lines, politics, and character development over > 1 episode, then I would favor DS9.

In any event, I like both immensely. NextGen is good technically and has some fine acting and good stories from time to time, but not quite as interesting. I'll still watch it if it comes on the TV and I'm around, but I don't actively seek it out.


----------



## The_Universe (Jun 28, 2005)

I infinitely prefer both TNG and TOS to DS9.  DS9 was good sci fi, but at its "best" it was barely star trek. Since what I really like is Star Trek, it was often a little hard to swallow. 

Sadly, the two series that followed it were even less true to Trek, which still leaves it firmly in the top 3.


----------



## Kesh (Jun 28, 2005)

Unfortunately, I gave up on DS9 after about season 3 or 4. Which, from what I'm learning, was right before it started getting good again. 

Maybe if I can ever catch reruns in order again, I'll give it a shot. I did like the concept of DS9, and the characters... it just didn't seem to be going anywhere by the third season. Plus, I was hooked on B5 at the time.


----------



## drothgery (Jun 28, 2005)

DS9 was far and away my favorite Trek series. Of course, I might just have had an adolescent crush on Terry Farrell...


----------



## sniffles (Jun 28, 2005)

I definitely agree that DS9 was the superior Trek series.  Admittedly it doesn't quite fit into the typical Trek model, being set on a space station, but I think that's actually what made it work better for me.  Without the "alien of the week" plots, they were able to devote more time to developing the characters.  It always amazed me that there was more development of Worf's character during his tenure on DS9 than there had been in his 7 years on TNG.


----------



## Wombat (Jun 28, 2005)

When I tell people that I liked Trek, I essentially mean TOS and DS9.

TOS was the correct Trek for the 60s -- brash, hopeful, forward looking, but with moral quandaries that had to be faced, the notion that even with superior technology we still carry problems within us.  The human factor, even when in alien guise was both the blessing and the curse of the universe.  Above all, there was hope.

DS9 was correct for its time -- still hopeful, but a bit more wary.  Humankind, even in the form of the generally benevolent Federation, was far from perfect.  There were cracks in the foundation, mistrust, and even mistakes.  Yet for all this, and perhaps even because of this, it was still a very hopeful series.  Even in the face of shifting alliances, even in the face of secrets hidden within an otherwise judicious government, even in the face of religious zealotry, there was the hope that things could and would improve, that the human spirit (again, even when in alien guise) would rise to the occasion.

TNG was a bit too clean, too PC for my tastes, though it had some excellent episodes (none of which was a two-parter).  VOY lost my interest pretty much from the first episode because it blew one of the most fascinating ideas of its premise immediately -- how do you hold such a disparate crew together with two differing visions of how life should be led and who should command (Maquis v. Federation).  Enterprise I didn't see enough to really critique, but I was saddened with the couple episodes I did see for the way they messed with the timeline.  

In the end, however, it all comes down to the moral quandry episodes for me.  Often in TOS a single decision and point of view was reached, and this was fine.  In DS9 there were often many shaded points of view, each valid under a particular set of circumstances, and this again was fine.  

And in the end, here is to Ben Sisko, the captain stuck in the most difficult position possible (Federation/Bajoran, Starfleet/Civilian, Human/Emmissary, etc.), who carried it all off with panache!


----------



## Umbran (Jun 29, 2005)

I liked DS9 a lot.  I'm not going to try to rank it against the other Trek shows, because I think that does them all a bit of a disservice.  If they were similar enough to compare closely, then they wouldn't have needed separate shows.

In general, I think DS9 was well written, had characters with greater depth than seen on most shows - including other Trek, and better execution and use of the cast ensemble than seen in most other places as well.


----------



## fett527 (Jun 29, 2005)

DS9 was definitely better on character development, but I would say I liked both TNG and DS9 equally for different reasons.  Also glad Q made his appearance on DS9- (Q-"You hit me!  Picard never hit me!" Sisko- "I'm not Picard.") always enjoable (not really on topic, but had to be said).

My one complaint is that I recenly saw the season finale in rerun and was VERY disappointed.  Thought it was quite lame.

Also wonder why it took so long for them to introduce the Defiant.


----------



## Rackhir (Jun 29, 2005)

It was definitely the least awful of the new trek series. It wasn't as pedantic as STNG and more inteligent than Voy. 

However it still shared the plot elements trumping logic and the ham handed morality they were clubbing you with. 

I remember one episode in particular it was the one with the Cardassian who was supposed to have commited a war crime during the occupation. Of course it turned out that he really wasn't that bad a guy, had tried to stop the attrocity and was practically trying to get himself killed to atone for what had happened. So things are more or less resolved and he was going to be heading back Cardasia, when an outraged Bajoran stabed him in the back killing him. 

I remember sitting there and thinking "Uh, it's just a knife wound, if they'd just bother to rush him to the med lab, we could have saved him with our current level of technology. I mean Bashir was right there and with 300 years worth of technological advancement, he should have just looked down and said "Oh don't worry about it. It's not like he's seriously dead. I'll have him up and around in about half an hour."

It's a shame really, the cast in DS9 was really first rate for the most part. Sisko was by far the best of the new trek leaders, but the plots only rose to the level of "not as excruciatingly awful as STNG or Voyager".


----------



## John Crichton (Jun 29, 2005)

DS9 was a wonderful show.  Seasons 4-7 were excellent.  Everything that came before that was a mixed bag that ranged from boring to really interesting.

TNG had some very special moments and the best series finale I've ever seen until Angel tied it.  TOS was TOS.  Voyager was terrible with moments of good entertainment.  Enterprise suffered from Voyager-lash and really didn't hit stride until season 4 when it was doomed to cancellation.

While DS9 was the least Trek-ish of all Treks, it had the best characters since Kirk, Spock and Bones. While Picard and Data were great characters, TNG didn't have the villains it needed to hit home time after time, with the exception of Q and he wasn't really a villain - more like an antagonist.  Garrak (probably one of my all time favorite screen characters), Dukat, Weyoun, Kai Winn and Eddington were all great supporting characters and those are just the major ones.

The Dominion War, the Klingon and Romulan machinations and the station's capable crew, all with their own interesting backstories and conflicts, made the show entertaining at every turn.  The turning point was, oddly enough, when Worf came on board at the start of season one.  The writing became bolder and the plots and characters became just a tad darker.

I never liked the Emissary plots with Sisko but they weren't terrible so I lived through them and concentrated on the rest of the show.  All the different conflicts, be they wars, politics or espionage were well done and tied into the main story.  There was misdirection, betrayal and flawed characters that we hadn't seen since TOS.  That's what made the show what it was.

And just so it's not all flattery - I hated the second hour of the season finale.  It was weak and felt rushed.  I had a feeling that they had enough material for another season and later found out that they did but Paramount wanted to have Voyager on the air by itself and told the writers to wrap things up.  The result was a weak ending to a very entertaining TV series.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Jun 29, 2005)

I liked Season Three the best. Of course I'm biased because it is the only seaon I own on DVD. Children of Time was my fvorite episode though.


----------



## fba827 (Jun 29, 2005)

When it comes to individual epsiodes, there are more TNG individual episodes that I like better.  However, over all, in terms of the complete series, characters, etc, I like DS9 the best.

(never got very into Voyager and never had a chance to see Enterprise, and don't remember TOS very well.)

DS9 had a good web of intercharacter relations (everyone had very distinct relationships, some good, some bad, with the other characters) and there was no/little distinct good or bad, just lots of grey.


----------



## Aust Diamondew (Jun 29, 2005)

I liked Star Trek: The Next Generation the best.  But DS9 I enjoy watching too.


----------



## Darthjaye (Jun 29, 2005)

Yeah, the supporting cast was filled with Sci-Fi veterans.  Jeffrey Combs played about a dozen or more different characters himself throughout the series until they settled him into Weyoun (he also continued with the Trek verse playing an Andorian in Enterprise).  Andrew Robinson (Garak) was awesome in his role.  As was Marc Alaimo as Dukat who's character was perfect in believing he was doing the Bajorans a favor throughtout the entire series.  His twisted reasoning was well played by the actor.  I still enjoy watching this series (as it airs constantly on Spike).


----------



## Acid_crash (Jun 29, 2005)

DS9 - my personal favorite...great storylines, great character development, good acting.  It and Enterprise are the two trek shows I want on dvd.  (I like Enterprise, I know I know it's not that popular, but I like it    ).

Voyager started off great, with great premise and good overall plot...but then they brought in the Borg, and kept the Borg, and still kept the Borg, and ended with the Borg, and it had just way too much Borg for my personal tastes... plus, 7of9 (is that her name?) was way overrated.

TOS and TNG had the alien of the week flavor going... some were good, some were poor, but both decent shows.... but no real character development (at least to me).


----------



## Welverin (Jun 29, 2005)

Kesh said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, I gave up on DS9 after about season 3 or 4. Which, from what I'm learning, was right before it started getting good again.
> 
> Maybe if I can ever catch reruns in order again, I'll give it a shot.




Spike weekdays at 11am and noon. They'er getting towards the end, so you'll have to wait a while until the work their way back around to that point.



			
				Darthjaye said:
			
		

> Jeffrey Combs played about a dozen or more different characters himself throughout the series until they settled him into Weyoun (he also continued with the Trek verse playing an Andorian in Enterprise).




He also regularly appeared as Brunt, Grand Nagus Zek's nemesis (who was played by Wallace Shawn).


----------



## Cor Azer (Jun 29, 2005)

fett527 said:
			
		

> Also wonder why it took so long for them to introduce the Defiant.




At first they didn't want a ship at all, settling for the Runabouts to get the crew to locations other than DS9 itself. Eventually, they decided that the crew did need a better ship, particularly if they were to explore the Gamma quandrant more.

In other words, they didn't think of it right away.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 29, 2005)

_DS9_ is the pinnacle of _Trek_ series. _TOS_ is the classic start, _TNG_ followed up by being the "Renaissance" of _Trek,_ and _DS9_ topped it all by impressive story writing and character development.

After that, the franchise just took a steep dive.

As for the _Defiant,_ I initially didn't like the ship. I was perfectly okay with the runabouts. Eventually I grew to love it.


----------



## JimAde (Jun 29, 2005)

I've got my asbestos underwear on, so I'm going to say it:

I liked Voyager.  Specifically, I liked Janeway.  Seven wasn't all that interesting, but Janeway, the Doctor and even Tom Paris were pretty cool characters.  And my favorite thing about the show is that they actually got back to Earth at the end.  I was very worried they'd get cancelled with little warning and leave them out there indefinitely.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 29, 2005)

JimAde said:
			
		

> I've got my asbestos underwear on, so I'm going to say it:
> 
> I liked Voyager.  Specifically, I liked Janeway.  Seven wasn't all that interesting, but Janeway, the Doctor and even Tom Paris were pretty cool characters.  And my favorite thing about the show is that they actually got back to Earth at the end.  I was very worried they'd get cancelled with little warning and leave them out there indefinitely.




You don't need to worry about flame protection, but I will say that I didn't like Voyager much. I think they didn't do enough with the implications of being VERY far away from home and I never felt much tension that they'd never get there (unless, of course, the show got cancelled). 
I will agree that the Doctor was an interesting character. I'd say he was the most interesting of all of them. Personally, I found Janeway and Paris to be very much uninteresting. But the Doctor we agree on.


----------



## The_Universe (Jun 29, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> _DS9_ is the pinnacle of _Trek_ series. _TOS_ is the classic start, _TNG_ followed up by being the "Renaissance" of _Trek,_ and _DS9_ topped it all by impressive story writing and character development.
> 
> After that, the franchise just took a steep dive.
> 
> As for the _Defiant,_ I initially didn't like the ship. I was perfectly okay with the runabouts. Eventually I grew to love it.



 I would have liked it better if it had been Star Trek: Defiant, rather than Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. I dug the Defiant, because it finally let them *explore,* rather than fester in their own dramatic juices on a border station.


----------



## sniffles (Jun 29, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> I liked DS9 a lot. I'm not going to try to rank it against the other Trek shows, because I think that does them all a bit of a disservice. If they were similar enough to compare closely, then they wouldn't have needed separate shows.
> 
> In general, I think DS9 was well written, had characters with greater depth than seen on most shows - including other Trek, and better execution and use of the cast ensemble than seen in most other places as well.




That's a really excellent way of looking at it, Umbran!  I do agree that although I responded with my opinion, it really isn't fair to compare shows (or movies, or books, or RPGs) and try to pick one "best".  They all do different things and we like them for different reasons.


----------



## Pants (Jun 29, 2005)

DS9 is my favorite, for all the reasons stated. The characters had more depth, the cast was good, and the shades of grey were abundant. "In the Pale Moonlight" is still one of my favorite episodes. Sisko and Garak decide to try and trick the Romulans into joining the war against the Dominion. Great episode. 

I fully enjoyed every Season of DS9, though seasons 4-6 were my favorite. 7 was good, but felt too rushed at points. Seasons 1 and 2 were a good introduction to the world. 3 wasn't bad either.

As I watch tNG more and more, I feel that the series hit its stride in Season 3 and started cranking out some of the better episodes by Season 4. If Seasons 1 and 2 didn't exist, I really wouldn't care. Those seasons had some really cheesy episodes, TOS cheesy, but with none of the fun interaction between characters (like the vocal sparring between Bones, Spock, and Kirk). When tNG had a good episode, it was usually really good, unfortunately to get to a good episode you'd have to watch a few episodes featuring 'aliens that look exactly like humans.' 

VOY was... well, Voyager. It had some good ideas, but it stuck too much to the tNG formula, with too much of a reliance on Time-Travel BS. 'The Year of Hell' Two-Part episode had the potentil to show how truly deserted Voyager was, but then it got turned into a Time-Travel episode. Ugh.

Never really watched ENT.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Jun 29, 2005)

Hands down my favorite of all the Trek series.  I felt it was the most believeable of the shows, even with the Emmisary stuff, because they often struggled their way to a solution to the episode's conflict, rather than having it just drop into their lap in the last 10 minutes.

While I haven't found the spare cash to plunk down on the DVDs yet, it is the one and only Trek series I am saving up to own.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 29, 2005)

The_Universe said:
			
		

> I dug the Defiant, because it finally let them *explore,* rather than fester in their own dramatic juices on a border station.



See, what you call 'festering in their own dramatic juices' is what I call 'creating a level of dramatic tension previously unknown in the Star Trek universe'.

What's the point in 'boldly going' if you always wind in the same places you've been before? I don't think even a talented pool of writers could keep generating high-quality 'explore the universe/explore a new SF idea' each week. Heck, the original show couldn't do it. And the later shows had an increasingly jaded/experienced audience to contend with

I see DS9 as 'falling back' on tried and true dramatic fundemantals to fuel the show. And I feel it covered far more ground than any of the later Treks, without technically going anywhere.

But to each his own...


----------



## Crothian (Jun 29, 2005)

I olike DS9 but I'm not a fan of the Dominion and that War.  It just didn't seem right, though it did have some intelligent war ideas which most shows fail.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 29, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I olike DS9 but I'm not a fan of the Dominion and that War.



Out of curiosity, what didn't you like about the Dominion War? 

I thought it was the best thing to happen to the ST universe since Orion slavegirls...


----------



## Crothian (Jun 29, 2005)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity, what didn't you like about the Dominion War?
> 
> I thought it was the best thing to happen to the ST universe since Orion slavegirls...




I dislike when big, powerful new governments are discoveried and then invade and have all this superior ability in tech.  I didn't like when they did it in the Expanded Star Wars Universe, and I didn't like it when they did it in DS9, and I didn't like it in Enterprise.  I think they have enough things that have been shown they could expand on and they don't need to go about creating new things for confllict.  It seemed a bit heavy handed at times and then of course the only way the Federation doesn't lose is through the wormhole aliens with is very deux machine or whatever that is called.

I do like the show and watch reruns when I can.  Character and some episdoes are really well done.


----------



## The_Universe (Jun 29, 2005)

Mallus said:
			
		

> But to each his own...



Obviously the case. 

I tune into Star Trek expecting (and wanting) to see a Trek...and DS9 was most assuredly not that for most of its run. It had some interesting character dynamics, but none that surpassed either that in TOS or TNG, and it gave up the part of the original shows that many people dearly loved - the idea of exploration. The very same "boldly going" you mentioned. 

I'll grant that DS9 had some "Bold", but I like the "Go" and on that count it lacked. I don't think it was a *bad* show - it's just my third favorite, and at least it was of better quality than Enterprise or Voyager.  It felt more like Trek than either of those, even though they featured exploration - it's decent quality TV. I just would have liked it better if it had focused itself in a different direction.


----------



## Simplicity (Jun 29, 2005)

DS9 sucked.  Sucked.  I think the only reason anyone watched it was because it was related to Trek.   

Let's take the exploration out of Star Trek, have them sitting in a space station and dealing with Ferrengi (sp?) all day.  

Ooooooooh.  Yeah, that's exciting.  

I'm not saying that Voyager was any good either, but at least it dealt with the Borg and 
those biological borg wannabees (Species 421 or some crap like that).  Enemies who actually felt imposing...  Well okay, maybe the borg overstayed their welcome.

Enterprise felt like it *could* have been good.  But then they started messing with time travel...  And the theme song probably lost 25% of the audience.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 29, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I dislike when big, powerful new governments are discoveried and then invade and have all this superior ability in tech.



Why is that? Its a time-honored tradition in the adventure genres, pitting the protagonists against 'overwhelming odds', and in SF that usually translates into 'a race w/better gadgets than yours'. 

I dislike when an uber-powerful race is introduced, challenges the heroes for 45 minutes or so, then gets resolved away by the hours end, without so much as a two-parter...



> I think they have enough things that have been shown they could expand on and they don't need to go about creating new things for confllict.



That's certainly true. But the Dominion did offer the writers something new; mystery. While they could pile new details onto the Klingons and the Romulans (and to their credit, they did), neither race offered what the Dominion did; the dramatic tension inherent in a long, slow reveal...



> ...the only way the Federation doesn't lose is through the wormhole aliens with is very deux machine or whatever that is called.



Sure. But it isn't all about human cleverness. Sometimes the aliens just catch a cold and die  

I'm really starting to think that deus ex machina is virtually unavoidable in SF (the end of new the Dr. Who really got me thinking). The SF audience wants galaxy-spanning (and history spanning) threats, super-high tech whizz-bangery, foes with intellects as vast and cold as space (but not nearly as empty). But by the end, they want simple human love, valor and compassion (with perhaps a dash of smarts) to win the day. 

How does that happen without a little DEM? My new position is: so long as the drama is high and the emotions feel right, then that's all that matters.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 29, 2005)

The_Universe said:
			
		

> Obviously the case. I'll grant that DS9 had some "Bold", but I like the "Go"



My motto is --today-- "More *bold*, less _go_". Which is fine, I'm a chess player anyway...


----------



## takyris (Jun 29, 2005)

I think that comparing DS9 and TNG is like comparing Kit Kats to Doritos. Personally, I like both. There are times when I'm in the mood for one, and times when I'm the mood for the other. I can understand people who only enjoy one or the other, or neither of them, for that matter. But arguments about which one is "better" falter, for me -- you can't compare them just because their package is the same color. They intended to do, and did, different things.

I feel that I can compare TOS, TNG, VOY, and ENT to each other, because those were all, to some extent, trying to do the same thing. Exploration, idea of the week, boldly going etc etc. In fact, I think that VOY and ENT got weakest when they went off-message and started going into story-arc mode -- but then, I stopped watching ENT in the second season, and I heard that the story arcs got stronger in Season Four.

I really liked having a Star Trek with a continuing storyline. I liked the political machinations -- but I wouldn't want every Star Trek to be like that (just like I don't want all Kit Kats to suddenly taste like Doritos). I always found the comparisons between B5 and DS9 to be more apt, since those two shows were trying to tell similar stories in a similar way. I thought that B5 had a stronger and more epic story, but I liked the political machinations in DS9 more, primarily because even with the wormhole aliens, I still felt like there was less Sudden Surprise Solution stuff in DS9 -- at least, once the war got rolling. In B5, you had Lorien pulling rabbits out of his hat and Sheridan doing big tricks with the telepaths, while DS9 didn't seem to add so many new cards to the table. (I liked both, mind you, but for different reasons.)

Which isn't really an answer. For my money:

TOS: Great for its time, a nice mixture of topical drama, cowboys-in-space, and current-for-the-time SF-idea exploration. I appreciate it, but watching it today, I find it fairly silly most of the time, because the groundbreaking stuff they did isn't groundbreaking any more. That's not a slam on TOS -- that's just just changing times.

TNG: Pretty much the same thing. Some episodes of TNG still hold up really well, but some episodes now seem dated and silly. At the time, I was entertained.

DS9: Enjoyed it, more so when the war story began. The war-arc seems to hold up better over time than the standalone TNG and TOS episodes, but we'll see if that stays true.

VOY: Stopped watching in Season... Five, I think, except for occasional episodes (I caught the finale). It seemed to pull its moral punches too much -- you'd have interesting moral ambiguity, and then one bunch of aliens would just decide to attack or commit genocide or something to make it clear who the bad guys were. (TOS and TNG might have done this too, but I was younger when I watched them and didn't catch it if they did it a lot.) And purely on a personal-taste note, I got tired of the Borg. I didn't need them in the series, although I appear to have been in the minority. 

ENT: Watched it through the first season and into the second, then stopped. I never got past the feeling that it was pulling punches, trying to be clever, doing card tricks in the dark, something. It just seemed like a joke I wasn't in on, and I'd watched all the other Treks. I heard it picked up in the fourth season, but it was too late for me by then. I really liked the idea of the temporal cold war, and it just never clicked... for me. I know it clicked for other folks.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 29, 2005)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> I think the only reason anyone watched it was because it was related to Trek.



And you would be completely wrong.

I have a number of friends with no love of the Star Trek universe who enjoyed DS9 immensely. They just found it to be a quality show.


----------



## John Crichton (Jun 30, 2005)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> DS9 sucked.  Sucked.  I think the only reason anyone watched it was because it was related to Trek.
> 
> Let's take the exploration out of Star Trek, have them sitting in a space station and dealing with Ferrengi (sp?) all day.
> 
> Ooooooooh. Yeah, that's exciting.



That's a terrible summary.  Did you even watch the last 4 seasons?  Voyager sucked.  Enterprise was average.  I didn't like either of those nearly as much as DS9.  They were all Trek.  Not all Trek is equal.

I'm going to stop here because I think I'm responding to a troll...


----------



## MulhorandSage (Jun 30, 2005)

I'm pretty much a charter member of the DS9 fan club. My heart belongs to TOS, but my head tells me that DS9 was the richest and quirkiest series of the lot. I can't think of any other comparable TV series with such a rich array of supporting characters and reoccuring guest stars. Garak alone made the series worth watching.


----------



## Simplicity (Jun 30, 2005)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> That's a terrible summary.  Did you even watch the last 4 seasons?  Voyager sucked.  Enterprise was average.  I didn't like either of those nearly as much as DS9.  They were all Trek.  Not all Trek is equal.
> 
> I'm going to stop here because I think I'm responding to a troll...




I'm really not trolling.  It's clear that a lot of people here really liked the show...  You know
okay, have fun with that.  But, I really thought that the show was terrible.  I did stop
watching it at some point.  Somewhere around the Dominion War.  What was that?  Season 3?  Don't tell me if I'd just hung in there for 3 years, there'd finally be some payoff.  At
some point, a terrible show doesn't require more watching.

The Dominion... meh.  
Quantum torpedoes... You know they're better because quantum > photon.
Shapechangey Odo.  Kind of interesting, but I just couldn't really get into the character.
The captain as a prophet...  I thought this was the best storyline the series had.  

When I think of the other Sci Fi shows on TV in recent history: Firefly, Farscape, Battlestar Galactica.  Those shows are vastly superior in every way.  There was more interesting stories and character development in one season of any of those shows than there was in three seasons of DS9.  

I even like Babylon 5 better than DS9, and I hate Babylon 5 (I know lots of people loved that show too...  I thought it was technically cool as a sci-fi show...  but strangely flat.)


----------



## Harmon (Jun 30, 2005)

DS9 promised to be grittier, meaner and nastier then any other Trek series (least that is how I recall the premise).  It failed in that, completely, and utterly.  The characters didn’t have a lot of dimension (I had seen them all before).  After the second season I bailed on the show, opting for something else (what it was at the time I have no idea).

Few years (seasons) later a friend of mine told me it had gotten better, so I tried to watch it on his word alone, but every episode was lacking in what I was looking for in a show like it.  It was just to kind, to nice-nice, it was just to picture perfect in the respects of the social comings and goings.  So again I bailed.

(A few things that bothered me were the amount of hand-to-hand fights that resulted in some mightier then though speech by one of the main characters.  You know what- I will pass on the speech, just shoot me with a phaser.    )

It was suggested that I watch the last season because it was so much better then the others.  Because of who it was that made the suggestion I gave the show yet another chance, and found it closing on what it was I was looking for in a show like it.  The war was interesting, the characters were thickening out (becoming 3D) and the writing was getting better.  All in all it was getting closer to what I had found and what I liked in B5.

I have yet to see all of the last season (I missed more then a few episodes when it was on due to what ever reason), but when I see the show is on and I have the time I try to watch it, simply because someone I once trusted and believed in told me it was good.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 30, 2005)

Harmon said:
			
		

> DS9 promised to be grittier, meaner and nastier then any other Trek series (least that is how I recall the premise).



Maybe you just plain don't like _Star Trek._ Or worse yet, it's _VOYAGER_ that got you aroused.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 30, 2005)

The_Universe said:
			
		

> I would have liked it better if it had been Star Trek: Defiant, rather than Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. I dug the Defiant, because it finally let them *explore,* rather than fester in their own dramatic juices on a border station.



_Star Trek_ is not all about going from here to there physically. _The Motion Picture_ got it right at the end of that story, "The Human Adventures continues..."


----------



## mojo1701 (Jun 30, 2005)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> There was more interesting stories and character development in one season of any of those shows than there was in three seasons of DS9.




Which seasons? The first three?


----------



## Napftor (Jun 30, 2005)

MulhorandSage said:
			
		

> I'm pretty much a charter member of the DS9 fan club. My heart belongs to TOS, but my head tells me that DS9 was the richest and quirkiest series of the lot. I can't think of any other comparable TV series with such a rich array of supporting characters and reoccuring guest stars. Garak alone made the series worth watching.




Amen to all of this.  DS9 had great stories and great actors/actresses to back it up.  And let's get Garak a spin-off series!  Who wouldn't want to see a spy/assassin/tailor plying his way through the galaxy leaving confusion, destruction, and well-dressed aliens in his wake.  My favorite Garak line, commenting about shooting people in the back, "Well, it _is_ the safest way."  That's just priceless.


----------



## John Crichton (Jun 30, 2005)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> I'm really not trolling.  It's clear that a lot of people here really liked the show...  You know
> okay, have fun with that.  But, I really thought that the show was terrible.  I did stop
> watching it at some point. Somewhere around the Dominion War. What was that? Season 3? Don't tell me if I'd just hung in there for 3 years, there'd finally be some payoff. At
> some point, a terrible show doesn't require more watching.



You don't want to hear it but, yes, if you hung with it until the end it got considerably better. 

And while it's okay to give up on a show that is not entertaining you it's another thing to give it another shot if enough people let you know that you may have missed something cool. Check out older Trek/DS9 threads to see what I mean.

And for the record, until this post you never said why you didn't like the show, but that it basically just sucked and you have a dislike of Ferengi.  Doing that while the rest of the posters are talking about why they liked it would be considered by many trolling.  You have rectified that with a more detailed post.  



			
				Simplicity said:
			
		

> When I think of the other Sci Fi shows on TV in recent history: Firefly, Farscape, Battlestar Galactica. Those shows are vastly superior in every way. There was more interesting stories and character development in one season of any of those shows than there was in three seasons of DS9.



You are naming (with the exception of B5, which is missing) some of the best genre TV ever with those shows. It's ok to not include DS9 in that list because it is elite company but I actually would, well more precisely seasons 4-7 (basically, and ironically for me, right after Worf showed up).

And considering you didn't watch the full run of DS9 to catch all the things that you loved in those other shows I suggest you do so. You may be pleasantly surprised. If I only had the first 3 years of DS9 to form an opinion I suspect that opinion would not be a kind one.

In this age of DVD and TV repeats it is easy to catch things you missed. If you are so inclined or have a TiVo/DVR I would highly recommend that you invest a little time into giving season 4 a chance and go from there. You've already seen what comes before and even if you don't remember, those events aren't as important as what is to come. So, if you're really into things like character development and story you owe it to yourself to give the show another chance. Then judge it once all the cards are on the table.



			
				Simplicity said:
			
		

> I even like Babylon 5 better than DS9, and I hate Babylon 5 (I know lots of people loved that show too... I thought it was technically cool as a sci-fi show... but strangely flat.)



B5 had some of the best characters and story I've ever been witness to from a TV show or anywhere else. I think you may have an irrational and intense hatred of stationary space objects that house hydrogen based life forms. Was a family member killed by falling space station debris?


----------



## Simplicity (Jun 30, 2005)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> You are naming (with the exception of B5, which is missing) some of the best genre TV ever with those shows. It's ok to not include DS9 in that list because it is elite company but I actually would, well more precisely seasons 4-7 (basically, and ironically for me, right after Worf showed up).




Well, also leaving out the Outer Limits, Twilight Zone, Dr. Who, etc.  But yeah, those are what I consider good (heck, great) shows.  DS9 doesn't hold a candle to any of them (at least what I've seen of it).  Maybe the later seasons do get better...  I haven't seen the later seasons, so no opinion there.

In my mind, DS9 goes slightly above Andromeda and Earth: Final Conflict in the quality of series list for now.



			
				John Crichton said:
			
		

> B5 had some of the best characters and story I've ever been witness to from a TV show or anywhere else.  I think you may have an irrational and intense hatred of stationary space objects that house hydrogen based life forms.  Was a family member killed by falling space station debris?




Ha!  Other than Mir falling on my cousin....

I understand what people like about B5.  REALLY cool bad guys.  Really cool good guy aliens. Interesting characters...  But it all seemed horribly wrong to me somehow.  Like the show just didn't have a soul or something.

Farscape had Crichton.  Star Trek had Kirk and Spock.  Who was the soul of B5?  Maybe if there were more puppets I would have liked it better.  It didn't help my view of the show that they used so much CGI (and not particularly good CGI...  especially in the early seasons) for ships and the station.


----------



## John Crichton (Jun 30, 2005)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> Well, also leaving out the Outer Limits, Twilight Zone, Dr. Who, etc. But yeah, those are what I consider good (heck, great) shows. DS9 doesn't hold a candle to any of them (at least what I've seen of it). Maybe the later seasons do get better... I haven't seen the later seasons, so no opinion there.



Fair enough.  But seriously, give season 4 a shot.  You may really like it.  I have always confessed to not liking seasons 1-3 much.  As a matter of fact, I have 1-7 on DVD and they are unwatched as of yet.  I'm considering watching a few select eps from 1-3 and then the entire run of 4-7.  Take that for what you will.



			
				Simplicity said:
			
		

> In my mind, DS9 goes slightly above Andromeda and Earth: Final Conflict in the quality of series list for now.



Heheh.  Never seen Andromeda but I actually really liked the first season of Earth: FC.  Later seasons were bleh.  Boone was a cool character.



			
				Simplicity said:
			
		

> Ha!  Other than Mir falling on my cousin....



 *rimshot*  



			
				Simplicity said:
			
		

> I understand what people like about B5. REALLY cool bad guys. Really cool good guy aliens. Interesting characters... But it all seemed horribly wrong to me somehow. Like the show just didn't have a soul or something.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Staffan (Jun 30, 2005)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> Who was the soul of B5?



Sinclair and Sheridan, mainly. But also G'Kar and Londo - their character arcs are probably the best I've seen on TV.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 30, 2005)

Actually I didn´t like Sheridan that much (though he definitely had some good scenes), but I can agree on G´Kar, Londo and Sinclair. 

Deep Space Nine will probably always be my favourite Startrek show. But I will hesitate to compare it with other shows, even if similar in design (like B5), because Startrek will always have "a special place in my heart". 

The introduction of the Dominion was interesting, because it was hinted at quite early that they existed (I believe the 1st season already mentions it once), and only later do we begin to understand what it actually is and what they do want. 
We already knew the Klingons, the Romulans and even the (relatively new) Cardassians to good to pull that off. 

The interesting bits of the war(s) arc are also the players and their changing roles in it. 
DS9 had not only character development (Sisko begins as sceptical commander that doesn´t believe in Prophets nor that the job as commander of DS9 is the job he wants, and finally accepts his role as a prophet), but also in the big "organization" development.
Tthe Federation slowly shows its darker sides (Section 31, the willingness to go to a war (including launching the first strike) ) and is also proven to have its limits (Unable to hold back the Klingons, struggling to win a war against the Dominion and even unable to protect its most central planets). The Cardassions change from opprossors (Bajor) to victims (Klingon War) to collaborateurs (Alliance with Dominion) to rebels (against the Dominion)...


----------



## Mallus (Jun 30, 2005)

Staffan said:
			
		

> But also G'Kar and Londo - their character arcs are probably the best I've seen on TV.



They were the soul of the show for me, in a show that had plenty of great characters. I don't think you'll find two better written/acted characters in SF film and televison.

That said, DS9 had its share of great, well-played characters; Sisko, Garak, Odo (which shocked me), Kira Nerys (which shocked me more) ,Bashir and O'Brien, Quark, , and of course, on the opposing team, Weyoun 5 and Dukat...


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 30, 2005)

Simplicity said:
			
		

> Farscape had Crichton.  Star Trek had Kirk and Spock.  Who was the soul of B5?




Delenn. Or G'Kar.

Londo is the tragic hero.



> _Maybe if there were more puppets I would have liked it better.  It didn't help my view of the show that they used so much CGI (and not particularly good CGI...  especially in the early seasons) for ships and the station._





For the time, the CGI was pretty good. Do you fault TOS for having styrofoam moons?


----------



## The_Universe (Jun 30, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> _Star Trek_ is not all about going from here to there physically. _The Motion Picture_ got it right at the end of that story, "The Human Adventures continues..."



 Says you. After all, who wouldn't say that the Motion Picture sucked? As far as I'm concerned, Wrath of Khan is the first Star Trek movie. 

For me, it's all about boldly (and since I apparently have to make this distinction - physically) going. It can be something else for you. I can't stop you, and I wouldn't. Deep Space Nine didn't deliver on that premise, though despite that it was not a *bad* show, just not my favorite. 

You can tell me *all you want* what a piece of entertainment was *really* about, but that doesn't make either of our interpretations of meaning any more or less true. After all, I can tell you that Transformers was really a detailed social commentary about racial disharmony in a technological society, but that would be total crap, as well.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jun 30, 2005)

The_Universe said:
			
		

> After all, who wouldn't say that the Motion Picture sucked?



*shyly raises hand from the back row*


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 30, 2005)

arnwyn said:
			
		

> *shyly raises hand from the back row*



*standing up before arnwyn, trying to hide him from the view of the the others, so nobody hurts him, even if he might deserve it, at least if taste in TV and movies wasn´t very subjective and should never lead to harmful physical consequences*
That´s the only trek movie I nearly (?) fell asleep watching it the first time as a young boy...


----------



## JimAde (Jun 30, 2005)

While TMP was pretty horrible, I was just so excited that there was something Trek on the big screen I ate it up anyway.  I just can't stand to watch it now, though.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Jun 30, 2005)

On the subject of "to boldly go"...

Just after DS9 premiered, someone on Usenet wrote up a parody of the TOS intro. I don't remember it exactly, but it was something like this:

"These are the non-voyages of the station Deep Space Nine. Its continuing mission: to seek out a brighter lighting system... to be able to replicate a cup of coffee without blowing up Ops... to boldly stay... right... here!"


----------



## The_Universe (Jun 30, 2005)

arnwyn said:
			
		

> *shyly raises hand from the back row*



 Don't cry, little one. No one will hurt you here.  Just watch out for V'Ger, who may bore you to the degree that you'd wish we had.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 30, 2005)

arnwyn said:
			
		

> *shyly raises hand from the back row*



*rudely knocks armwyn out of the way, full of man-bluster*

I like the Star Trek: The Motion Picture. I proudly own the special edition (re-edited) DVD. 

Its too slow, its too long, but damnit if it isn't a grand-scaled, thoughful (if not original) science fiction film, that, as the tag-line says, doesn't lose sight of the human drama. Or adventure. Whatever. 

Is it as good as Khan? No. But Khan's something of pop-art masterpiece. Its Star Trek meets Melville, complete with exploding planets and Ricardo Montelbans' exploding hair... Few things can beat that.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 30, 2005)

Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> On the subject of "to boldly go"...
> 
> Just after DS9 premiered, someone on Usenet wrote up a parody of the TOS intro. I don't remember it exactly, but it was something like this:
> 
> "These are the non-voyages of the station Deep Space Nine. Its continuing mission: to seek out a brighter lighting system... to be able to replicate a cup of coffee without blowing up Ops... to boldly stay... right... here!"



The last part 







> to boldly stay... right ... here!



 strikes really well, but not in a bad way: Seeing the Cardassians, Klingons, Breen and Dominion going up against the federation, staying where you are is actually a very bold and powerful thing. DS9 didn´t have to go anywhere- it´s "point" was to stay where it was (, just as is to be expected by a base.), and it was just an image for the survival and stablity of the federation. Despite this "stability" and "staying", DS9 evolved and changed the Startrek Universe more than any of the other series. TOS or TNG never really changed the fundamentals of the world (discounting the movies). The introduction of the Enterprise D surely moved the time and technology forward, but afterwards, nothing really changed. 
I am exaggerating a bit - at the end of DS9, most is as it was before. Though we certainly got a new view on the universe of Startrek.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 30, 2005)

That's funny. I always thought  I was alone in thinking that this was the best of the star trek series.  

Today's episode on Spike was a clear example.   Odo and his new changling friend experience the same type of racism faced by middle eastern people after 911 and during the Iraq War.  The great thing is this episode came out, obviously years before all of these events.  It shows the tendancies that we as humans are.  Great episode.  

Deep Space nine was packed with episodes like this.  I liked how it constrasted TNG.  TNG was great because it explored the beyond.  DS9 Explored our inner selves.  HOw, no matter , we still face the same problems in the future as we face now.   There is one episode where Sisko is looking at a list of a million people who have died in the war and he starts to cry.  It's amazing to see the true impact of war in a sci fi show.


----------



## sniffles (Jun 30, 2005)

I always thought one of the very best episodes was one of the later ones in which Sisko had to lead a plan to trick the Romulans into joining the Federation against the Founders.  He obviously hated what he was doing and despised himself for going along with it.  This was not a show about perfect people living in a happy little galaxy.  

I loved the development of the relationship between Odo and Kira, and how it didn't all work out happily ever after.  I also enjoyed how Worf and Dax came together, how the producers were willing to let Jadzia die, and how Worf reacted to meeting Dax's new host.  And the development of Gul Dukat, from a totally evil villain to a guy you could almost like, and then back into a villain - and it was all completely believable, not just done to progress the uberplot.  And I thought it was very courageous of the producers to go out on a less-than-tidy ending, which ended up being very satisfying for me as a viewer just because it didn't tie up all the loose ends.

However, I will not get into a debate about whether DS9 was better than B5, or any other show.  And on reflection I retract that I said DS9 was the best Trek series; it's the one I most preferred, but there is no "best" because they're all different and they all contain things I like.


----------



## Villano (Jun 30, 2005)

sniffles said:
			
		

> And the development of Gul Dukat, from a totally evil villain to a guy you could almost like, and then back into a villain - and it was all completely believable, not just done to progress the uberplot.




I love Dukat and think he's one of television's best villains, however, I didn't like him as much after his daughter was killed.  He went insane for one episode (seeing and hearing things that weren't there), then was fine the next.  And then he went on his "Pah-Wraiths" kick.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 30, 2005)

sniffles said:
			
		

> I always thought one of the very best episodes was one of the later ones in which Sisko had to lead a plan to trick the Romulans into joining the Federation against the Founders.  He obviously hated what he was doing and despised himself for going along with it.  This was not a show about perfect people living in a happy little galaxy.
> 
> I loved the development of the relationship between Odo and Kira, and how it didn't all work out happily ever after.  I also enjoyed how Worf and Dax came together, how the producers were willing to let Jadzia die, and how Worf reacted to meeting Dax's new host.  And the development of Gul Dukat, from a totally evil villain to a guy you could almost like, and then back into a villain - and it was all completely believable, not just done to progress the uberplot.  And I thought it was very courageous of the producers to go out on a less-than-tidy ending, which ended up being very satisfying for me as a viewer just because it didn't tie up all the loose ends.
> 
> However, I will not get into a debate about whether DS9 was better than B5, or any other show.  And on reflection I retract that I said DS9 was the best Trek series; it's the one I most preferred, but there is no "best" because they're all different and they all contain things I like.




That's a good stance to take.  Ds9 was the show I prefer.  Believe it or not my brother prefers Voyager.  To each his own.  It is among my favorite scifi shows alongside farscape and sg1.


----------



## John Crichton (Jun 30, 2005)

sniffles said:
			
		

> I also enjoyed how Worf and Dax came together, how the producers were willing to let Jadzia die, and how Worf reacted to meeting Dax's new host.



First off, I agree with most of your post. 

But the producers had little say in what happened with Jadzia - the actress was leaving the show and they had to kill her off.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jul 1, 2005)

The_Universe said:
			
		

> Says you. After all, who wouldn't say that the Motion Picture sucked? As far as I'm concerned, Wrath of Khan is the first Star Trek movie.



It's the first _Star Trek_ movie that has more action and edge-of-seat thriller.

But a true _Trek_ story tend to be more cerebral, like _The Motion Picture_ the _TOS_ pilot episode, "The Cage."

If I want less than cerebral, I'd watch _Star Wars._ After all, even a village idiot can understand the theme of good vs. evil.


----------



## mojo1701 (Jul 1, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> If I want less than cerebral, I'd watch _Star Wars._ After all, even a village idiot can understand the theme of good vs. evil.




...which is Vader, again?


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 1, 2005)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> ...which is Vader, again?



 Neither.  He's 100% Bad Ass.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 1, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> It's the first _Star Trek_ movie that has more action and edge-of-seat thriller.
> 
> But a true _Trek_ story tend to be more cerebral, like _The Motion Picture_ the _TOS_ pilot episode, "The Cage."
> 
> If I want less than cerebral, I'd watch _Star Wars._ After all, even a village idiot can understand the theme of good vs. evil.



I don´t see the motion picture as very cerebral, could you explain why you think it is? 
(I must admit I seem only to remember minute-long sequences showing a giant space ship that seemed to lead nowhere, but I didn´t see the movie since a decade or so... But the point is - only if I identify cerebral with long-winded and boring I can see this term applying for The Motion Picture, and I don´t think that´s what you or I do understand under cerebral.  )
I think Startrek VI was a lot more cerebral - Kirk unable and unwilling to accept the chance for peace with his enemies because of all he experienced due to them, members on all sides going even further and trying to work against this peace for the same and similar reasons...


----------



## Ranger REG (Jul 1, 2005)

Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> On the subject of "to boldly go"...
> 
> Just after DS9 premiered, someone on Usenet wrote up a parody of the TOS intro. I don't remember it exactly, but it was something like this:
> 
> "These are the non-voyages of the station Deep Space Nine. Its continuing mission: to seek out a brighter lighting system... to be able to replicate a cup of coffee without blowing up Ops... to boldly stay... right... here!"



Meh. That's nothing. _Trek_ critics have panned _DS9_ as being a "soap opera in space." But I ignored them. I have a certain attachment to _DS9_ because I was discussing each episode on a game mailing list based on Last Unicorn Games' _Star Trek The Roleplaying Game_ back in the days. Gawd, I missed those days.


----------



## Rackhir (Jul 1, 2005)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I think Startrek VI was a lot more cerebral - Kirk unable and unwilling to accept the chance for peace with his enemies because of all he experienced due to them, members on all sides going even further and trying to work against this peace for the same and similar reasons...




One important plot element that got cut out of the movie was that Kirk's son (from ST2) had been killed in one of the colony raids that the Klingon obstructionists were staging. Which was the main reason why he was so angry with the Klingons. Wait, wasn't he killed in ST3? Perhaps it was his mother that got killed then.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 1, 2005)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> One important plot element that got cut out of the movie was that Kirk's son (from ST2) had been killed in one of the colony raids that the Klingon obstructionists were staging. Which was the main reason why he was so angry with the Klingons. Wait, wasn't he killed in ST3? Perhaps it was his mother that got killed then.



That wasn´t cut off the movie, was it?  I remember a scene where he talks either to Spock or into its log and mentions that he blames (rightfully) the Klingons for the Death of his son. I think that was even used in the Klingon trial against him...

But either way, that has nothing to do with why Startrek I was cerebral.


----------



## Harmon (Jul 1, 2005)

Kirk's son was a scientist on the Genesis Project that Khan stole (the second movie).  

In the 3rd movie he was investigating the Genesis planet, where he got killed by Christopher (crap, forgot his name- Jim from Taxi, Doctor Brown from Back to the Future- anyways) who was a Klingon.  Kirk killed him and escaped in destruction of the planet on his ship. 

Kirk has always disliked Klingons and I wish they had partaken in his death.

Oh, and ST isn't very cerebral- its just a fun watch.

Back to DS9- could someone explain to me the religious significance of Sisko and why he was important to the Bajornins (sp)?  I have never understood that.


----------



## The_Universe (Jul 1, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> It's the first _Star Trek_ movie that has more action and edge-of-seat thriller.
> 
> But a true _Trek_ story tend to be more cerebral, like _The Motion Picture_ the _TOS_ pilot episode, "The Cage."
> 
> If I want less than cerebral, I'd watch _Star Wars._ After all, even a village idiot can understand the theme of good vs. evil.



 I'd watch The Cage (or the two-part rehash, the Menagerie) a thousand times before I sat through Star Trek the motion picture, again.  You can compare the two all you want, but I don't feel that they're at all alike. Hell, the best parts of ST: TMP were Kirk vs. the Bureucracy.  The Cage at least had an interesting mystery (and they used a phaser cannon!)  What does TMP have to compare to that? 

Boring dialogue with the somewhat humanized intelligence of a 1970's space probe?  The early doings of the cast of the WB's Seventh Heaven? Ridge-headed Klingons? 

OK - I'll give you ridge-head Klingons. But that's where I draw the line!


----------



## Darthjaye (Jul 1, 2005)

Sisko was created by the Prophets.  They arranged for his father to meet his mother so he would be born.  He had always been destined to be the Emissary.  It's all explained in the last two years of the series.  As for it being or not being cerebral, it depends on which series you watched.  TNG and DS9 were both very cerebral most of the time.  TOS wasn't so much.  Voyager not at all in my opinion.  I never really got into Enterprise so I couldn't give an educated guess as to where it falls.


----------



## pennywiz (Jul 1, 2005)

DS9 seemed a little pretentious and never really followed through on the promise of ST.  It shoehorned the pseudo-religious material about the Emissary into the ST universe, but not in a credible way.  When DS9 tried to embrace the typical melodrama of ST in its plots and character relationships, it either went for over-dramatic displays (different from melodrama) or it couldn't help allowing the director and actors to virtually wink at the camera/audience.  It fell flat in a lot of ways that the DS9 fanatical fan-base tend to gloss over or ignore.  That's a shame because a lot of them are very vocal about the short-comings of other ST series but such arguments from fans who see no wrong in their own favorite make it hard to listen to them at all.


----------



## Rackhir (Jul 1, 2005)

pennywiz said:
			
		

> DS9 seemed a little pretentious and never really followed through on the promise of ST. It shoehorned the pseudo-religious material about the Emissary into the ST universe, but not in a credible way. When DS9 tried to embrace the typical melodrama of ST in its plots and character relationships, it either went for over-dramatic displays (different from melodrama) or it couldn't help allowing the director and actors to virtually wink at the camera/audience. It fell flat in a lot of ways that the DS9 fanatical fan-base tend to gloss over or ignore. That's a shame because a lot of them are very vocal about the short-comings of other ST series but such arguments from fans who see no wrong in their own favorite make it hard to listen to them at all.




Are you suggesting that people who are fanatically devoted to something might be excessively critical of similar things, yet can't see the flaws in what they are devoted to? Good thing that only happens with isolated geek groups...


----------



## Mallus (Jul 1, 2005)

pennywiz said:
			
		

> It shoehorned the pseudo-religious material about the Emissary into the ST universe, but not in a credible way.



Why wasn't it credible? There's precendent in ST for alien cultures that worship ancient computers, advanced beings of pure energy, etc. The Prophets were just weird space-time lifeforms that lived in a wormhole. Tradtionally, these gods would have been broken, punished by their parents, or starved for apples while the Enterprise bombarded them with phaser fire from orbit... because you know, if its worshipped it, it must be evil...

All DS9 did was twist the formula a little and introduce a race of god-aliens that weren't half bad. I found it refreshing. I saw it as a backhanded postmodern --look, our fake space gods are true-- endorsement of faith.



> When DS9 tried to embrace the typical melodrama of ST in its plots and character relationships



Actually, DS9 --for better or worse-- had character relationships that were quite unlike the other shows. They developed gradually, over time, and were must richer for it.



> it couldn't help allowing the director and actors to virtually wink at the camera/audience.



When? Where?



> It fell flat in a lot of ways that the DS9 fanatical fan-base tend to gloss over or ignore.



Or maybe the 'DS9 fanatical fanbase' just found something in the show that you didn't, or at least didn't work for you?


----------



## Harmon (Jul 1, 2005)

So the Prophets manipulated Sisko's life so that he would chose to join Star Fleet, have his wife killed by the Borg, and be given the command of the station at Baijor *or* was he pre destined by their influence to be the Emissary (which means he had no choice in his life, just what the Prophets allowed him to have between birth and the moment when he became the Emissary)?

I recall something about the Prophets being aliens that did not preceive time in a linaer fashion (they saw all moments in time at the same exact moment or something like that).  I suppose that would be because they lived within a Worm Hole, where Space/Time is warped beyond even our theortical understanding (even Hakings says he doesn't completely understand Worm Hole theory).  How is it that beings that lived in such a fashion would even care about the people of Baijor or its people?  More over how would the people of Baijor even know of the Prophets?  And why would they worship them?


----------



## DonTadow (Jul 1, 2005)

When I was a child, I learned early that there were different versions of STar Treks fans.  I grew up with 3 brothers and a dad, all of us treckies, all of us for different reasons.  

My dad and brother were both fans of the original series.  They loved the action and space cowboy type stories the best from TNG.  Thus they were only moderate fans of DS9.  HOwever, they were both huge fans of Voyager.  

Me, I loved the stories and engrossing "cerebral" plots that both series had.  I loved the episodes that threatened intense action but was solved with simple mystery investigation.  Those were the best, having a physical challenge in your way but solving it with your mind.  DS9 produced a few more of these types of episodes and had episodes in which there was no danger whatsoever, just a story to be told "Bwadah Bwadah Bing".  So that became my show after. 

My little brother was facinated by the exploration of the episode and the different races and such.  Believe it or not his favorite in the series is enterprises because he feels the "the serioes finally got back to its roots".  

Three different types of treckie completely different reasons for liking the series of shows.


----------



## Harmon (Jul 1, 2005)

As far as the fan base of ST goes, some of the fans are a little- odd, we (99%) must admite.    

As far as the ST universe being consistant.  Its not, the sensors can pick up the smallest of atoms to within the trillianth of a millimeter, they can reengineer matter for transportation, can create food from energy, yet they can not recreate a being like Data.  Not sure I would feel comfortable about using the transporters. 

I would rather not get into a debate about the tech on ST but its pretty much a question of story line, the show was good for what it was, and all shows have short comings.

Its my preferrence to learn more about DS9, and this thread appears to have attracted a few fans that I can probe for information.


----------



## Mallus (Jul 1, 2005)

Harmon said:
			
		

> How is it that beings that lived in such a fashion would even care about the people of Baijor or its people?



Well, the whole 'perceives the whole of time' thingy was first posited by St. Augustine in _City of God_, so it seems pretty clear that the DS9 writers were trying to conflate at least some quality of the Christian God with their wormhole aliens. I guess that doesn't answer 'why?'. Go read St. Augustine...


> More over how would the people of Baijor even know of the Prophets?



I always assumed the wormhole terminus was visible from Bajor. I believe they called it 'The Celestial Temple'.


> And why would they worship them?



Because once they were a primitive, superstitious people who did stuff like worship the lights in the sky? And unlike everyone else in the ST universe, as they matured as a civilziation, they choose not to lose their faith and stop?


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Jul 2, 2005)

Harmon said:
			
		

> How is it that beings that lived in such a fashion would even care about the people of Baijor or its people?



I believe at one point the Wormhole Aliens call the people of Bajor their "children."  Whether they actually helped start life on Bajor, or merely adopted it after the fact, the WHA's seem to view the Bajorans as children to be nurtured and guided.







> More over how would the people of Baijor even know of the Prophets?  And why would they worship them?



The Orbs might have something to do with that.  Every so often a crystalline object shoots out of the wormhole and jettisons down to Bajor.  They all have unique supernatural powers.  Many of them were lost during the Occupation, but some few remain.  The Orb of Prophecy figures prominently in the series.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Jul 2, 2005)

Mallus said:
			
		

> I always assumed the wormhole terminus was visible from Bajor. I believe they called it 'The Celestial Temple'.



The wormhole _is_ called the Celestial Temple by Bajorans, but it isn't visible unless it's active.  The location of the Celestial Temple wasn't known until the wormhole was discovered just before the series began.


----------



## Harmon (Jul 2, 2005)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> The Orb of Prophecy figures prominently in the series.




What season and or episode were the orb's brought to the attention of the viewer?  I have only seen a few dozen episodes and I don't recall every having seen one or hear about them.


----------



## Staffan (Jul 2, 2005)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> Neither.  He's 100% Bad Ass.



Nooooooooooooooooooo!


----------



## EricNoah (Jul 2, 2005)

I liked the pilot, and there were individual episodes that were good or even excellent, but overall I never really cared for it that much.  In particular I found Sisko's overacting very grating.  And the plot model wasn't all that great and its limitations showed frequently (if ToS was "wagon train to the stars" then DS9 was a "pit stop/hotel/convention center/shopping mall in the stars").


----------



## mojo1701 (Jul 2, 2005)

What I really loved about the show was Morn.


----------



## Pants (Jul 2, 2005)

Harmon said:
			
		

> What season and or episode were the orb's brought to the attention of the viewer?  I have only seen a few dozen episodes and I don't recall every having seen one or hear about them.



The orbs are mostly explain.ed in the very first episode when the wormhole is discovered. Sisko consults one of the Orbs in the episode.


----------



## Harmon (Jul 2, 2005)

Pants said:
			
		

> The orbs are mostly explain.ed in the very first episode when the wormhole is discovered. Sisko consults one of the Orbs in the episode.




Emm- I haven't seen the pilot in a lot of years.  Guess I should NetFlix them or something.  Thanks, this is most helpful.


----------



## Welverin (Jul 2, 2005)

Harmon said:
			
		

> Emm- I haven't seen the pilot in a lot of years.  Guess I should NetFlix them or something.  Thanks, this is most helpful.




It should be on Spike very soon, if it hasn't already. So you can start from the beginning there (I mention when it's on, on the first page).


----------



## Wayside (Jul 2, 2005)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Well, the whole 'perceives the whole of time' thingy was first posited by St. Augustine in _City of God_, so it seems pretty clear that the DS9 writers were trying to conflate at least some quality of the Christian God with their wormhole aliens. I guess that doesn't answer 'why?'. Go read St. Augustine...



The idea of atemporal divinity is certainly not an invention of Augustine's. One (much older) expression can be found in Vedic literature, for example (you may have noticed that the writers of DS9 even made "Vedic" a spiritual office for Bajorans, so the connection is fairly straightforward). There are others.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jul 2, 2005)

The_Universe said:
			
		

> I'd watch The Cage (or the two-part rehash, the Menagerie) a thousand times before I sat through Star Trek the motion picture, again.  You can compare the two all you want, but I don't feel that they're at all alike. Hell, the best parts of ST: TMP were Kirk vs. the Bureucracy.  The Cage at least had an interesting mystery (and they used a phaser cannon!)  What does TMP have to compare to that?
> 
> Boring dialogue with the somewhat humanized intelligence of a 1970's space probe?



Yep. With all of the knowledge V'Ger have attained in the universe and suddenly developing its own awareness, it always questioned, "What's next?"


----------



## Mallus (Jul 2, 2005)

Wayside said:
			
		

> The idea of atemporal divinity is certainly not an invention of Augustine's. One (much older) expression can be found in Vedic literature, for example (you may have noticed that the writers of DS9 even made "Vedic" a spiritual office for Bajorans, so the connection is fairly straightforward). There are others.



Thanks. I think by 'first posited' I actually meant 'the first time I heard this was in...". I sometimes forget those aren't the same thing...

And somehow I managed to miss the whole Veda/Vedic thing. Color me embarassed, that was obvious.


----------



## Harmon (Jul 2, 2005)

Welverin said:
			
		

> It should be on Spike very soon, if it hasn't already. So you can start from the beginning there (I mention when it's on, on the first page).




Ya, I know.  Problem though- I can't always watch TV when its on, and can't always get around to watching a tape (if I taped every episode, and watched them as fast as I could, I would run out of tapes before I got through one).

Between school, homework, work, house work, etc. I just haven't the time.


----------



## Harmon (Jul 4, 2005)

Question- The Founders, sent out one hundred of their people to explore the Alpha Quadrant, why was it that they didn't do more to investigate it themselves, or did I miss something there?


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Jul 4, 2005)

Harmon said:
			
		

> Question- The Founders, sent out one hundred of their people to explore the Alpha Quadrant, why was it that they didn't do more to investigate it themselves, or did I miss something there?



My guess would be fear.  You learn very late in the series that nearly everything the Founders have done, up to and including creating the Dominion, has been out of fear of outsiders.  They fear both what they do not know, and what they cannot control.

Sending out adult Changlings into the Alpha Quadrant runs the risk of exposing the location of the Changling Homeworld, and the secrets of the Changling people, to the sentients of the Alpha Quadrant.  On the other hand, by doing what they did, they risk very little.  After all, the 100 Changlings sent into the Alpha Quadrant were infants.  They knew nothing of their people, nor where their planet was.

So the Changlings send out the 100 children, with only a genetically implanted urge to seek out home, into the unknown.  If the children are captured and interrogated, no biggie.  They don't have any secrets to reveal.  If, on the other hand, some of them manage to learn about the Alpha Quadrant and then return home, big win for the Changlings.

Or so I always supposed.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 4, 2005)

Harmon said:
			
		

> So the Prophets manipulated Sisko's life so that he would chose to join Star Fleet, have his wife killed by the Borg, and be given the command of the station at Baijor *or* was he pre destined by their influence to be the Emissary (which means he had no choice in his life, just what the Prophets allowed him to have between birth and the moment when he became the Emissary)?
> 
> I recall something about the Prophets being aliens that did not preceive time in a linaer fashion (they saw all moments in time at the same exact moment or something like that).  I suppose that would be because they lived within a Worm Hole, where Space/Time is warped beyond even our theortical understanding (even Hakings says he doesn't completely understand Worm Hole theory).  How is it that beings that lived in such a fashion would even care about the people of Baijor or its people?  More over how would the people of Baijor even know of the Prophets?  And why would they worship them?



I guess it is actually impossible to say what the Prophets did if we want to describe it from their perspective. 
In our "linear" view on the time we know that he was created by the Prophets, but "later" we have no clear evidence that they are manipulating his actions without him seeing it.
We know that Sisko was ignoring the wishes of the Prophets a few times.
So I think he had a free will from our linear perspective. It was his decision to go to Starfleet, and his decision to marry Jennifer... Maybe a bit of it is result of his "parents", just as some of our traits are result of our parents (maybe his inherent love for Bajor drove him to go for the stars, looking for what he subconciously missed on Earth. But the exact details on how he got there are still upto him...)

Though from the prophets perspective, it probably looked different. They didn´t see his development, they just saw him and his life as a whole, beginning, middle and end at once. 
To say the truth, it´s probably impossible for us (including the writers of the show) to really understand or describe this view on time.


----------



## Harmon (Jul 7, 2005)

Question to Trekkies-

I have none of the DVDs of the series.  Do the disks have any back ground on the shows?  Helpful hints and such?  Basically are the DVDs worth getting?


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 7, 2005)

Harmon said:
			
		

> Question to Trekkies-
> 
> I have none of the DVDs of the series.  Do the disks have any back ground on the shows?  Helpful hints and such?  Basically are the DVDs worth getting?



 Yes, but at ebay/amazon prices - not what Paramount is charging.  

ign.com has some good DVD reviews on each of the sets released so far...


----------



## BlackSilver (Jul 7, 2005)

Don't buy the DVDs they are way to expensive.  JC has a good suggestion if you really want them.

BTW- you should call him.  Clear the matter up.  Losing a friend isn't worth the pain you are feeling.


----------



## Harmon (Jul 8, 2005)

Thank you all for the help on understanding DS9.  Kinda cool you guys would find the time to explain the show to me, I guess there was more depth there then I was seeing in the first couple of seasons, and by the sounds of it I missed the best parts <shrug> usually do.







			
				BlackSilver said:
			
		

> BTW- you should call him.  Clear the matter up.  Losing a friend isn't worth the pain you are feeling.




Can't- he asked me not to contact him.  I was mad, said some things, tried to apologize and was blown off.  I try to abide by the requests of people I care about, so I will speak no evil, contact numbers are erased and the ball is in his court.  Lets let it be Silver, its what he wants.


----------



## BlackSilver (Jul 8, 2005)

Harmon said:
			
		

> Thank you all for the help on understanding DS9.  Kinda cool you guys would find the time to explain the show to me, I guess there was more depth there then I was seeing in the first couple of seasons, and by the sounds of it I missed the best parts <shrug> usually do.




I have always liked Star Trek.  DS9 I missed most of because I was without a TV for much of that time, this thread has helped me too.  As Harmon said, thank you.









			
				Harmon said:
			
		

> Can't- he asked me not to contact him.  I was mad, said some things, tried to apologize and was blown off.  I try to abide by the requests of people I care about, so I will speak no evil, contact numbers are erased and the ball is in his court.  Lets let it be Silver, its what he wants.




Thats to bad  :\  

To be honest, the comment was not directed at you.  Sorry if I stepped on any toes, its obviously a tender spot for you, and I feel that you are getting no help, and no assistance with making things better.  

As you requested, Harmon.


----------



## Pants (Jul 9, 2005)

Note, for those interested, DS9 is about to 'restart' on SpikeTV rather soon. Probably on Tuesday. There's only a few episodes left in the series at this point.


----------



## Harmon (Jul 10, 2005)

Pants said:
			
		

> Note, for those interested, DS9 is about to 'restart' on SpikeTV rather soon. Probably on Tuesday. There's only a few episodes left in the series at this point.




I was gonna check out NetFlix- see if they have the show on DVD.  It takes me some time to get through DVDs while I am working, doing school, and stuff.  

Thanks, Pants its good to know, maybe I can catch an episode or two.


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 10, 2005)

For those interested, I picked up the whole DS9 series on DVD for around ~200. The only drawback is that it's the Asian import version (totally legit). But to my surprise, with the exception of the packaging (the whole thing came in one big-ass box, I'll attach a screenshot if asked) it has all the extras and quality of the US discs. The only other thing missing is the last disc (with the extras) from the first season. Otherwise, it's all there. Same menus, and pretty much same everything.

Yeah, as I collector I'd much rather have the spiffy individual season boxes and the US versions but for the price it ain't bad.


----------



## wilrich (Jul 12, 2005)

Pants said:
			
		

> Note, for those interested, DS9 is about to 'restart' on SpikeTV rather soon. Probably on Tuesday. There's only a few episodes left in the series at this point.





Thanks for the heads up.  I've been watching it recently on Spike, and have really enjoyed it.  I've probably watched the last two seasons of the series, and now that it's starting over, I wonder if a fan could answer a question or two for me.

When does the Dominion metaplot get going?  It is my understanding that the series was more "conventional" (i.e. based on stand alone episodes) for the first few seasons, and that the metaplot didn't kick in until later seasons.  Is that true, or is the metaplot present from episode one?  (I want to know because I really like the metaplot, and I have limited time for TV watching, so I'm wondering if I can just jump in until later in the series if I'm primarily interested in the metaplot).

Thanks


----------



## Darthjaye (Jul 12, 2005)

The Dominion was actually hinted at from the first season.  there were a few episodes where people coming from the other side of the wormhole mentioned them in passing (as someone to be feared/ look out for when on the other side).  An episode where Quark goes to the other side as a rep for the Ferengi has mention of it from the race he is trading with.  They kinda drops hints now and then about them (few and far between), but it really didn't come to a run-in with them until about season 5 I think.  

The season 1 reboot starts tomorrow around noon pacific time btw.  Enjoy wilrich.  They run two a day in order (of course) so it will go fast.


----------



## Trickstergod (Jul 12, 2005)

Seeing the past few episodes did make me twinge on a few points, though - the infantry battles. 

It seems that every fight involves the characters running at each other like idiots, screaming their heads off, and firing. Ignoring cover, tactics, and any general sense of survival. The ground battles typically look absolutely terrible. 

Of course, it's worse when klingon's go charging in with bat'leth's (or however it's spelled) and somehow emerging victorious against phasers and disruptors. 

For my part, I think Deep Space Nine was the series with the most potential to make a "different" Trek. All the other series have a reasonable theme of exploration; DS9's was something closer to interaction, if that makes any sense. It had the opportunity for something a little seedier, something a little different. When the series first started, Quark was definitely my favorite character. 

However, it kind of fell through and never materialized enough to my satisfaction. 

Still, I think it's also my favorite of the Trek series, at least for the most part.


----------



## Pants (Jul 12, 2005)

wilrich said:
			
		

> When does the Dominion metaplot get going?  It is my understanding that the series was more "conventional" (i.e. based on stand alone episodes) for the first few seasons, and that the metaplot didn't kick in until later seasons.  Is that true, or is the metaplot present from episode one?  (I want to know because I really like the metaplot, and I have limited time for TV watching, so I'm wondering if I can just jump in until later in the series if I'm primarily interested in the metaplot).
> 
> Thanks



The Dominion is mentioned in passing several times throughout Seasons 1 and 2. The first two seasons are mainly about Bajor, Cardassia, and new places in the Gamma Quadrant.

The Dominion doesn't appear until Season 2's Season Finale (ironically named 'The Jem'Hadar'). The 'war' between the Federation and the Dominion doesn't truly start until the end of Season 5, though there are plenty of skirmishes in between.


----------



## Staffan (Jul 12, 2005)

wilrich said:
			
		

> When does the Dominion metaplot get going?



IIRC, they weren't mentioned much, if at all, in season 1. In season 2, we saw lots of Gamma Quadrant folks making references to them, but we didn't see them directly until the finale (where we saw the Jem'Hadar and a Vorta). Season 3 had Starfleet trying to learn more about the Dominion but largely failing, with the finale showing what the Dominion's rulers are like. Seasons 4 and 5 increase tensions, with the season 5 finale being the Dominion taking over DS9. Seasons 6 and 7 are about the war itself.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Jul 13, 2005)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> I liked the pilot, and there were individual episodes that were good or even excellent, but overall I never really cared for it that much.  In particular I found Sisko's overacting very grating.




That's the same with any series, SF or not.



> And the plot model wasn't all that great and its limitations showed frequently (if ToS was "wagon train to the stars" then DS9 was a "pit stop/hotel/convention center/shopping mall in the stars").




ROFLMAO

Next con is at DS9!!!   

Guaranteed to be more expensive than GenCon or Dragoncon! That's 'cause you've gotta book thru Quark's Bar!


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Jul 13, 2005)

Pants said:
			
		

> Note, for those interested, DS9 is about to 'restart' on SpikeTV rather soon. Probably on Tuesday. There's only a few episodes left in the series at this point.




I kinda wish it wasn't on the AM, as I usually have to work then...


----------



## Harmon (Jul 13, 2005)

Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> I kinda wish it wasn't on the AM, as I usually have to work then...





Write to the channel that shows it and ask for them to put it on during and time that you suggestion.  They will probably laugh and toss the note, but if they see a couple of those a month from different people they might think they can get some viewers out of a time change.

Worth a try.


----------



## BlackSilver (Jul 17, 2005)

Harmon said:
			
		

> Can't- he asked me not to contact him.  I was mad, said some things, tried to apologize and was blown off.  I try to abide by the requests of people I care about, so I will speak no evil, contact numbers are erased and the ball is in his court.  Lets let it be Silver, its what he wants.




Sorry, Harmon, but I need to ask- As I recall you asked him for a favor and that is how all of this started?  Now he has asked you to never contact him again and your are standing by that request?  

Wow!

Even after your friendship is over you are a better friend then he was while you thought you were friends.  

You should moarn the lose no longer, its obvious that you care(d) about him more then he did you.

I extend my apologizes, Harmon, this has been bothering me for some time and I wanted to speak up.


----------



## Darthjaye (Jul 18, 2005)

This I will only say one time Blacksilver.  You only have half the story and not all the details.  It's nice to know you make judgement calls without all the facts with a person you REALLY don't know much about (and I mean that about both the people you are talking to and about in question).  

I am not one to sit here and complain and admonish a friend or former firend for all here to peruse.  I also am not using these forums for sympathy to make myself feel better or slam someone else for all to read.  What i am here to do is enjoy myself with people who wish to have fun and not bring people down or disregard their advice and aid.  

This all being said, you are welcome to come in to these threads and discuss the topic at hand, but I will not tolerate or let this sort of conversation  continue,  I have put up with months of this and want it to stop.  Do you understand?  I'm really trying to be polite in the face of this, but this sort of banter makes it very hard...........


(and just so you know, I am a very loyal friend and good father so I would appreciate that you not make any more judgements on me in my own threads in the future.   Would you want the same in return?  I'm gonna guess no.)


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jul 18, 2005)

Harmon said:
			
		

> Question- The Founders, sent out one hundred of their people to explore the Alpha Quadrant, why was it that they didn't do more to investigate it themselves, or did I miss something there?




It has been quite a while, but I think they say/hint that the Dominion wasn't any more aware of the wormhole than the Federation until it opened.  The Founders at one point mention that they didn't expect Odo to return for quite a long time.  They obviously do begin to explore after that - it's left open for how long they had infiltrated Star Fleet, but a good point of reference might be finding how long Bashir had been held captive until Worf found him.

DS9 was my favorite of the series, because it wasn't so clean.  TNG just irritated me with its relatively black and white view of morality and ethics.  DS9, and to an extent Enterprise, muddied the waters quite a bit, so that there's wasn't always a "right" answer, or that doing the "right" thing had a cost.  Voyager promised that, and promptly abandoned that, along with all semblence of inter-personal conflict, which is why it's my least favorite.

That said, DS9 had it's fair share of cheesy and crappy episodes.  Pretty much every Ferengi-oriented episode, for example.  Whoever had that fetish needed to be taken out behind the lot and shot.  They were by far the most pointless of episodes, even when they tried to make some semblence of social commentary.

And Garibaldi was by far the heart of B5.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jul 18, 2005)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> That said, DS9 had it's fair share of cheesy and crappy episodes.  Pretty much every Ferengi-oriented episode, for example.  Whoever had that fetish needed to be taken out behind the lot and shot.  They were by far the most pointless of episodes, even when they tried to make some semblence of social commentary.
> 
> And Garibaldi was by far the heart of B5.



With all due respect, I felt the Ferengi in _DS9_ are far more rounded than the Roddenberry's impression in _TNG,_ (supposedly the new main _Trek_ villain ... that flopped).

I felt the episode in which Nog tries to cope having lost his leg during the Dominion War is pretty well-written.


----------



## mojo1701 (Jul 19, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> I felt the episode in which Nog tries to cope having lost his leg during the Dominion War is pretty well-written.




"It's Only a Paper Moon" was an amazing episode. It gave consequences to something that happened. The only time that I can think of that that happened in a non-DS9 Trek was the Hirogen/Hologram revolt two-parter of Voyager.


----------



## Harmon (Jul 19, 2005)

Silver,

Reframe and edit.

Darthjaye has made the end clear, I am the only one that mourns the passing.

Darthjaye- no one said anything ill of your fathering skills, in fact they have always been above and beyond.  As I have said many times, I respect your abilities in that department. 

BTW- the apologies still stand, as do they all.  You have made the choice, I can do nothing but wait by your request.


----------



## BlackSilver (Jul 19, 2005)

Darthjaye- you are right, I cannot judge you by what I know of Harmon’s tail.  However from what I have seen and heard from him, he has been trying to communicate something for quite some time.

While I was having trouble with one of my players, he came in to speak about you and the insults you made about and to him, and the years he endured them.  He has mentioned that he wants to find a way to remedy what has happened between you two, and has tried many different ways to do so.

He has said sorry to you more times in this forum then he has talked trash about you, and stated that you have refused to accept his apologies.  

My post here was in curiosity, and in a desire to help someone that has helped my group.  I suppose that I have over stepped my bounds.

It doesn’t seem fair to me that you can so obviously attack him in your post (#116) and then make such demands while he stands by your request.  It seems so unfair.  

Your hostility is quite clear to me, and I will attempt to stay away from you and your threads, because of Harmon and because as you imply this is not the place for it.

I am not sure how you will take this, but I will say it anyway- I am sorry.  Sorry, that you took my query with such hostility.  Sorry that you took it as an attack on you or your family.  And lastly sorry to EN World for taking up space on a very nice thread.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jul 19, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> With all due respect, I felt the Ferengi in _DS9_ are far more rounded than the Roddenberry's impression in _TNG,_ (supposedly the new main _Trek_ villain ... that flopped).
> 
> I felt the episode in which Nog tries to cope having lost his leg during the Dominion War is pretty well-written.




I'm not arguing that, it's just that even so, they all came off as highly annoying and very inconsequential to the series as a whole.  Nog is a special case, since he's actually a member of Star Fleet, which is in and of itself a seperate culture entirely from the Ferengi.  It's very likely that were Nog more a typical Ferengi, he wouldn't have gotten in, let alone thought of joining.  And Quark was an exceptionally written character as well, one of my favorites on the show.  It's just that whenever they wrote an episode that didn't have to do with a specific Ferengi, but the Ferengi culture and politics, it was just plain awful.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Jul 20, 2005)

Darthjaye said:
			
		

> This I will only say one time Blacksilver.  You only have half the story and not all the details.  It's nice to know you make judgement calls without all the facts with a person you REALLY don't know much about (and I mean that about both the people you are talking to and about in question).
> 
> I am not one to sit here and complain and admonish a friend or former firend for all here to peruse.  I also am not using these forums for sympathy to make myself feel better or slam someone else for all to read.  What i am here to do is enjoy myself with people who wish to have fun and not bring people down or disregard their advice and aid.
> 
> ...




Um. Can we keep personal quibbles out of a public forum? Please?


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Jul 20, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> With all due respect, I felt the Ferengi in _DS9_ are far more rounded than the Roddenberry's impression in _TNG,_ (supposedly the new main _Trek_ villain ... that flopped).
> 
> I felt the episode in which Nog tries to cope having lost his leg during the Dominion War is pretty well-written.




Ferengi as a Trek villain did flop. Miserably. They looked like they shoulda been in the circus rather than being bad guys. 

About as well-written as the storyline in JAG when Bud Roberts lost his leg in Afghanistan.


----------



## mojo1701 (Jul 20, 2005)

Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> Ferengi as a Trek villain did flop. Miserably. They looked like they shoulda been in the circus rather than being bad guys.




They COULD'VE worked. I mean, the ultimate savage capitalists. Willing to do whatever is necessary for the bottom line.


----------



## wilrich (Jul 20, 2005)

Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> Um. Can we keep personal quibbles out of a public forum? Please?





Yes, either keep them out, or dish!  What happened?  Don't leave us in the dark if you're going to go on about them "in public."


----------



## Ranger REG (Jul 20, 2005)

Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> About as well-written as the storyline in JAG when Bud Roberts lost his leg in Afghanistan.



And your comment on that _JAG_ story arc is...?


----------



## Arnwyn (Jul 20, 2005)

> I am not one to sit here and complain and admonish a friend or former firend for all here to peruse.  I also am not using these forums for sympathy to make myself feel better or slam someone else for all to read.  What i am here to do is enjoy myself with people who wish to have fun and not bring people down or disregard their advice and aid.



Freaky-weird.

Either spill the beans so we can all watch, point, and laugh at this trainwreck consisting of a bunch of people with questionable social skills in action - or can it.


----------



## Orius (Jul 22, 2005)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> That said, DS9 had it's fair share of cheesy and crappy episodes.  Pretty much every Ferengi-oriented episode, for example.  Whoever had that fetish needed to be taken out behind the lot and shot.




That was probably Ira Steven Behr.  He's the guy that made up the Rules of Acqusition.  And he's the reason the DS9 didn't suck, because he was running the show, and Berman left him alone because he didn't get his own way.


----------



## Welverin (Jul 22, 2005)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> For those interested, I picked up the whole DS9 series on DVD for around ~200. The only drawback is that it's the Asian import version (totally legit). But to my surprise, with the exception of the packaging (the whole thing came in one big-ass box, I'll attach a screenshot if asked) it has all the extras and quality of the US discs. The only other thing missing is the last disc (with the extras) from the first season. Otherwise, it's all there. Same menus, and pretty much same everything.




So where does one get such a wonder of technology?

Other questions, what's the region? Is it only the bonus disc for the first season that is missing?

Also, I would be interested in a pic of the packaging.

Finally, give the first few seasons another try. Towards the beginning of the thread you mentioned not liking them as much and skipping them and moving straight to season four. After picking up and watching season one I was surprised how much I liked it, saince over the years I had fallen into the "it picked up with season four" mode of thinking.


----------



## LostSoul (Jul 23, 2005)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> They COULD'VE worked. I mean, the ultimate savage capitalists. Willing to do whatever is necessary for the bottom line.




I think that's exactly why they flopped.  Since they take the opposite ideology of the show's heroes, they have to be portrayed as awful in everything they do.  Another villian that shows an evil shadow of the federation - the Borg - they're able to put in a more competant light.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Jul 26, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> And your comment on that _JAG_ story arc is...?




That I thoroughly enjoyed the whole story arc revolving around Bud and his struggles to live and then recuperate from his injuries. And how the rest of the group treated him. Although I was totally expecting a separation between him and his wife due to the tension between them; he wanting to get back to his old self and she wanting to coddle and protect him.


----------



## RaceBannon42 (Jul 29, 2005)

DS9 is my personal favorite of all the treks. TNG is 2nd followed by ToS. Voyaeger and Enerprise I never really got into.  Although thruth be told I was not till I started watching DS9 in syndication and got to see episdoes on a nightly basis that i really appreciated it. When it came out on DVD I was able to watch it in order from start to finish  and it was so much better that way. I suppose i might appreciate Voyager and Enterprise more if I gave it the same chance.


----------

