 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Aug 18, 2012 - 6:44 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
KevinSmith
(Member)
|
Some people like to point out that Star Trek: DS9 was the beginning of the end of good old fashioned Trek and the idea of being on a permanent space station showed that the writers were finally starting to run out of ideas.
I, for one, disagree.
Deep Space Nine, in part, changed how the game was played. After two relatively uneven seasons, the solo episodic nature that served the previous incarnations of Trek were dispensed with and more expansive story arcs emerged. I would argue that since the premise was about a static space station, it allowed for the overarching stories to be implemented compared where a moving starship from mission to mission. Starting in Season 3 and ending in Season 7, some of the finest moments written for Star Trek were broadcasted.
Deep Space Nine presented a darker, sometimes more sinister version of Star Trek which challenged the idea of the future being a perfect utopia. It was much more of an show for adults than TNG ever was, with challenging story themes and much more action than TNG ever had. The teenagers who watched TNG became adults watching DS9.
Avery Brooks (who has disappeared off the map since the conclusion of Deep Space Nine) was perfect for Benjamin Sisko, a captain who was not afraid to make the tough decisions, particularly if the decision was in the 'grey' area. His performance in "In the Pale Moonlight" is stunning to watch as Sisko tries to rationalize the events past in the episode.
The ensemble cast was varied and strong over the years with all the characters getting serious character development in one form or another (even Quark, the comic relief of the show). I was a bit curious about the inclusion of Worf at the start of Season 4, but it turned out to be the right decision (Worf got far far more character development in DS9 than he ever did in TNG show or movies).
All in all, it carried the flame for Star Trek with flying colours in the 90s and that deserves some respect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some people like to point out that Star Trek: DS9 was the beginning of the end of good old fashioned Trek and the idea of being on a permanent space station showed that the writers were finally starting to run out of ideas.
I, for one, disagree.
Deep Space Nine, in part, changed how the game was played. After two relatively uneven seasons, the solo episodic nature that served the previous incarnations of Trek were dispensed with and more expansive story arcs emerged. I would argue that since the premise was about a static space station, it allowed for the overarching stories to be implemented compared where a moving starship from mission to mission. Starting in Season 3 and ending in Season 7, some of the finest moments written for Star Trek were broadcasted.
Deep Space Nine presented a darker, sometimes more sinister version of Star Trek which challenged the idea of the future being a perfect utopia. It was much more of an show for adults than TNG ever was, with challenging story themes and much more action than TNG ever had. The teenagers who watched TNG became adults watching DS9.
Avery Brooks (who has disappeared off the map since the conclusion of Deep Space Nine) was perfect for Benjamin Sisko, a captain who was not afraid to make the tough decisions, particularly if the decision was in the 'grey' area. His performance in "In the Pale Moonlight" is stunning to watch as Sisko tries to rationalize the events past in the episode.
The ensemble cast was varied and strong over the years with all the characters getting serious character development in one form or another (even Quark, the comic relief of the show). I was a bit curious about the inclusion of Worf at the start of Season 4, but it turned out to be the right decision (Worf got far far more character development in DS9 than he ever did in TNG show or movies).
All in all, it carried the flame for Star Trek with flying colours in the 90s and that deserves some respect.
The biggest difference between DS9 and the other shows..
The others shows were about "Exploring the Final Frontier"
DS9 was about "Living on The Final Frontier'
In many ways, living out there and making it all work is a vastly harder task.
Ford A. Thaxton
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The biggest difference between DS9 and the other shows..
The others shows were about "Exploring the Final Frontier"
DS9 was about "Living on The Final Frontier'
In many ways, living out there and making it all work is a vastly harder task.
Ford A. Thaxton
Agreed- I think this is the truest expression of the ideals of Star Trek of all the series.
It's my favorite of the ST series.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was a loyal fan of the show. It had an ever-growing breadth and depth you could sink your teeth into. It had a deep bench of richly-portrayed supporting characters, any of whom could carry a whole episode (Garak, Vic Fontaine, Rom, Leeta, Nog, Weyoun, Martok, on and on). The best episodes were incredibly good and there were plenty of them. I enjoyed the Ferengi comedy episodes a lot, and that's just one type of thing DS9 excelled at.
The downside: I wasn't crazy about Avery Brooks; he struck me as very a wooden actor, mannered and deliberate rather than genuine, and his character could be insufferably pompous. Plus, the whole thing with Bajoran religion was a turn-off. While it was valid storytelling that you'd run into alien religions, the show paid far too much respect to that crap.
Still, overall it was a sensational series with many standout episodes and characters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The moment I saw this in your comment
" I find the characters to be dull "
In regards to DS9, you lost me.
Anyone who considers Mr. Garek to be dull isn't to be taken seriously.
:-)
Ford A. Thaxton
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I looked in on Deep Space Nine occasionally. It's just programming. A hollow shell. Soul-less. Wheel-spinning devoid of inspiration or purpose. A product for consumption and money-making. A waste, really. An excuse for the younger cut-throat competitive producers on The Next Generation to finally break free of Roddenberry and assert themselves.
You are of course entitled to your opinion.
However, you clearly weren't watching the same show I was.
Any series with episodes such as DUET, THE DIE IS CAST, THE VISITOR and IN THE PALE MOON LIGHT just to name a few is anything but"Soul-less" in my view.
Ford A. Thaxton
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was - and still am - a fan of the original incarnation of Trek but never got into Next Gen. When DS9 came along I'd largly lost all interestin Trek but I gave it a go nevertheless.... and hated it. To me it was an entirely different culture from the Trek I knew, tied together with the other series soley by dint of technology and costumes. To my mind - and I appreciate this to be a bit of a generalisation and a largely uninformed one at that because I gave up on the show after season 1 - they could have made pretty much the same show without tying it into the Trek universe at all.
I have dipped back in in the last couple of years to re-evaluate the show but I still don't like it. I find the characters to be dull in the main and attempts at generating chemistry between them always looked really forced. And above all I really, really hated Sisko, the most boring officer-in-charge of any Trek ever in my opinion. And sorry but the guy who played him was just terrible!
As I say, I fully admit I am not representative of the core audience of this or any other Trek post-TOS, probably because those shows all moved on and grew up wheras I guess I just like Kirk blowing the shit out of things.
But you did ask!
Start with Season 3.
No even earlier then that.
Start at about the end of Season #1 with DUET and move on from there.
The opening of season 2 with the 3-Parter Homecoming, The Circle and Siege is where things start really moving.
These 3 episodes are incredible for so many reasons including the UNCREDITED appearances of Frank Langella as "Minister Jaro", I would have given my right arm to have him return and meet Mr. Garek, that would have been AWESOME!!!!
Ford A. Thaxton
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Aug 19, 2012 - 5:12 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Mr Greg
(Member)
|
It was a long time before I really tried with DS9 - although I loved TOS and The Next Generation, I wasn't enamoured with DS9 when it was first broadcast...I found it to be slow and curiously uninvolving, plus I didn't like the conceit of it being set at a fixed point in space rather than the roving explorers of TNG and TOS.
A few years after the final epsiode broadcast, I decided that it HAD to be worth the investment of time...so I watched it, beginning to end...one of the joys of my job is that if I have a quiet night I can have stuff on in the background...so I borrowed the DVD's and set to work.
Ultimately, I was so glad I did it - it took some time for it to really take off for me, a good couple of seasons, but it became such a pleasure feeling like I was part of that microcosm of the universe...the storytelling ran hot and cold, but even the cold episodes were more than watchable. When it ran hot, it was absolutely scintillating. I even shed tears at the finale...to feel that it was over after all that emotion, all the adventure (and I was surprised at how much there was), the revelations, the wars!!
The characters became more than characters - they became friends, enemies, people I cheered for...in a way that neither TOS nor TNG never really acheived (for me)...and to be honest Odo was the person who's story I took a special interest in...and it almost became as though I was seeing the whole story through his eyes (though such was the quality of some of the writing I guess you could have said that about any of the characters).
Before I watched it I couldn't care less about the show if I'm honest. After I watched the complete series in one mammoth marathon (I really did watch nothing else for a few weeks) I can honestly say I really, really miss being at Deep Space 9, and I hope to see those old friends once more...some day....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 20, 2012 - 11:28 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
Just out of interest, may I ask those of you who loved DS9, what did you think of Avery Brooks' performance as Sisko overall?
The reason I ask is that his acting was one of the big things to put me off the show right from the start. I found his acting to be wooden, laboured and very one-dimensional. It seemed to me he was trying to copy Patrick Stewart's acting style but without one tenth of the ability of the Brit thespian.
The only other thing I've seen him in is American History X and didn't think he was very good in that either.
There are some episodes where he is pretty off-putting, clearing doing a theatrical take on the role, going pretty over the top. Somehow Patrick pulled off theatrical and it always worked. On the other hand there are times when Sisko is introverted and thinking and he is pretty good.
For the show overall, there are some episodes where I really do not have interest, the changeling stuff just gets old. There are too many episodes with Dr. Bashir. Someone in production loved this character but he has way too much screen time, the character is too talky and annoying. The religious aspect can be overplayed too sometimes.
What is good about the show is showing the imperfection of people, the dark side of wars and conflicted nature of command. They delved more deeply into these things than TNG.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
