STAR TREK

Well, it's certainly a surprise to find out you're a Trek-fan @B-Boy, but a welcome one to be sure.

Anyhow, I can understand those who love Voyager the most (it is probably the most easy to watch & accessible aside from Next Gen), but it felt way too safe (almost like a TNG light) and abused the reset button (when a show with such a great premise should never resort to that), some extreme inconsistencies not to mention it became the Janeway, Seven & Doctor show (with many of the characters that should've gotten more focus ignored). It is still a solid show with a lot of good episodes (even if it has less greats overall than say TNG & DS9), but I think that it needed to be willing to take more risks and be a little more serialized, though yes, it probably looks the best when not viewing it as a 'Trek' show exclusively.

The reason why I love DS9 are many, but I like the premise and how it explores and questions the utopia and features darker themes, explores a lot of aspects and topics like war, faith, etc, having a great ensemble cast (which I think that VOY didn't quite manage to), also having many non-human & non-Starfleet characters, the writing is fairly consistent and the continuity is great. The later seasons with the war are usually the most popular and I really like all that stuff, but I also like the early seasons just as much (and find them just about as interesting and enjoyable). In many ways, I'd say that it felt like the most human 'Star Trek' (showing both the good and the bad in people) and that really does it a lot of good.

I find the notion of it being that much Anti-Trek or "Trek in decline" kinda overblown: It may be a darker and a little more cynical take on the Trek universe, but it still retains that optimism that things will get better if we fight for it, but I understand people having trouble with it challenging the things that came before in TOS & TNG. I really think Trek needed a different show that was willing to explored the darker and greyer side of things and it worked out, without losing the 'Trek' identity in the process. It is still 'Star Trek', just different.

As for Sisko and his questionable behavior at times, I remember most of it was due to the war itself during which called for a lot of difficult, hard decisions and drastic measures (where he sometimes appear villainous) and I understood that, though a few times I did think he went too far. Janeway was written as a whole lot more all over the place and inconsistent (and how), which I think is a big reason why she's often more criticized, but I still like her character a lot and feel she doesn't always deserve the criticism she gets.
 
Last edited:
Well, it's certainly a surprise to find out you're a Trek-fan @B-Boy, but a welcome one to be sure.
My entire life man! Massive Trekkie. Could talk about it all day. :)

I totally respect your opinions which are well backed up! Don't get me wrong, I think DS9 is a terrific show and it has some of the greatest pieces of television ever made (The Visitor and Far Beyond the Stars chief among them). I personally just feel that Voyager is more in line with the Trek spirit and has an exceptional principal cast (some of whom weren't always well served especially in the show's second half, but always solid).

Ever checked out Jammer's Reviews? It's my go-to resource for Trek discussion.
 
Last edited:
@B-Boy, just when I thought you couldn't really surprise me more, you did. Fascinating.

But yeah, I completely respect your opinions as well & I totally understand why some would like Voyager much more as it is indeed more typical 'Trek' with all the bells and whistles (starship, exploring new worlds and civilizations, etc.) rather than the more "challenging" DS9 which explored more the human condition and utopia of the 'Trek universe' (even if it still did the abeformentioned cliché 'Trek' things). I still think it (Voyager') deserved much better with such a great premise and likeable main cast instead of being TNG V.2 and having that safe, missed potential feeling and reset button abuse (and sometimes feeling oddly regressive).

I, like many more, blame producer Rick Berman (whom appear all the more guilty the more fanmade BTS videos I watch) for disallowing so many things that could've improved it tenfold. It should've allowed for more free thinking when it comes to the writing (like how it was with DS9), but the reins were held way too tightly. Though to be fair, the show itself isn't still my least favorite of the classic shows, which would be 'Enterprise' (due to the first two seasons, of which the first was just okay but the second felt too much "Trek on autopilot" with a lot of boring rehash stories taking up much of the middle half. The third and fourth/last seasons I really enjoyed though and found a big improvement. Too bad the series got cancelled right when it had found its groove).

I tend to check out Jammer's Reviews once in a while (nice reads, even the comments), but I also like looking at tor.com's 'Star Trek' rewatch series projects (currently reviewing 'Enterprise') and the 'Trek' reviews at them0vieblog (that are really quite in depth and interesting). There are lots of interesting write-ups regarding 'Trek', I must say.
 
Last edited:
Enterprise is also my least favourite of Berman-era Trek. I've never fully gotten into it (though, again, it has some stellar episodes like Dear Doctor) and I think that's because it felt, for lack of a better word, 'pop-y'? Which is to say, it tried to be more accessible, mainstream and commercial in a 'lowest common denominator' sort of way that previous Treks didn't. 100% agree though, season 4 with Manny Coto as showrunner was what it should always have been. I'd take ENT over most current-day Trek though (well, Discovery and Picard specifically). Yuck.

I guess Trek was running out of steam at that point (4 shows and 15+ consecutive years on the air). I'm not sure it aligned with what post-9/11 viewers were looking for in their shows either. The Sopranos, 24 and others were re-writing the television rule book at the time with their hyper-serialised formats and more grim/cynical tones. Did viewers at the time think Trek's semi-episodic and optimistic philosophy was antiquated?

Thanks for those links, by the way. I knew about those resources, but haven't really engaged with them properly as yet! If you're interested in reading a very different perspective on DS9/VOY, a commenter on Jammer's by the name of Elliot has posted some extremely insightful arguments/reviews over the years which have radically changed how I view Trek.
 
Last edited:
I'd take ENT over most current-day Trek though (well, Discovery and Picard specifically). Yuck.

A little surprised you dislike modern 'Trek' that much (and I say this not being a big fan of either 'Discovery' or 'Picard'), but I think it is understandable since it does have many problems (I'm thinking one of the biggest is how they treat those shows as full on modern action blockbusters, being a lot of flash and missing out on a lot of what defines the franchise, not to mention feeling too overdramatic/emotional to the point of narm at times. I'm also getting a little tired of the "world-ending threat" plot in every season (plus 'Picard' felt overstuffed). It is easy to hate on new Trek (and I understand the grievances of fans), but I think it has its good sides (and Discovery's new season is looking pretty good so far, I think. Certainly feels more "Trekky" now).

That said, I think that the animated 'Lower Decks' is well worth watching (best of the modern shows in the franchise, especially after the second season where it really found itself IMO, really tapping into that classic 'Trek' feel) & the also animated 'Prodigy' is really good and promising so far. Like I said before, I think that the future of modern 'Star Trek' seem to lie in the animated landscape, but we'll see what 'Strange New Worlds' might bring to the table next year.

I guess Trek was running out of steam at that point (4 shows and 15+ consecutive years on the air). I'm not sure it aligned with what post-9/11 viewers were looking for in their shows either. The Sopranos, 24 and others were re-writing the television rule book at the time with their hyper-serialised formats and more grim/cynical tones. Did viewers at the time think Trek's semi-episodic and optimistic philosophy was antiquated?

I do think the changing TV landscape around that time might have had something to do with it, but I'm guessing franchise fatigue also played a part in it (especially with how the show wasn't so successful to begin with, never really finding an audience until it was too late, which is certainly a shame).

Thanks for those links, by the way. I knew about those resources, but haven't really engaged with them properly as yet! If you're interested in reading a very different perspective on DS9/VOY, a commenter on Jammer's by the name of Elliot has posted some extremely insightful arguments/reviews over the years which have radically changed how I view Trek.

I will take a look at those (and I already see his reviews are incredibly long and extensive, makes my Simpsons review look fairly short in comparison, lol). A whole lot of the comments over on that site have some interesting insight, arguments & discussions regarding the episodes in question and the franchise itself.
 
Last edited:
A little surprised you dislike modern 'Trek' that much (and I say this not being a big fan of either 'Discovery' or 'Picard'), but I think it is understandable since it does have many problems (I'm thinking one of the biggest is how they treat those shows as full on modern action blockbusters, being a lot of flash and missing out on a lot of what defines the franchise, not to mention feeling too overdramatic to the point of narm at times. I'm also getting tired of the "world-ending threat" plot in every season, plus 'Picard' felt overstuffed). It is easy to hate on new Trek, but I think it has its good sides (and Discovery's new season is looking pretty good so far IMO)
'Overstuffed' is definitely an accurate term to describe Picard. It wasn't all bad (Nepenthe was fantastic and the ending was beautiful). I really could have done without all the violence and grimness though. There's enough of that on TV already.
 
'Nepenthe' was really the only episode that stood out to me on 'Picard' (aside from the first episode) as it really felt like a fresh breath of wind in all of the serious grimness of the plot (I think the daughter was great for one thing. Her inquisitive optimism pretty much made the episode really come together). Best episode of the show by far.

I see a lot of debates regarding the darkness and grim attitude and I think the thing is that Star Trek has been dark before at many times, but it is often overdone now (and sometimes get a bit too much, like with the forced eye removal in 'Picard') and I definitely agree that in times like these, we need more optimism and less overtly dark themes & grimness.

It is not a bad thing to let the shows be dark, but there should be a balance (and that's probably why I like the direction Discovery is going for this season (haven't seen the fourth one yet, but the third was a good example of balance).
 
@B-Boy, I was thinking of the review sites we talked about earlier and begun wondering if you have any favorite 'Star Trek' fan videos/content creators on YouTube?

I think the retrospective series on the franchise by Rowan J Coleman is very well made and researched so definitely a must watch (currently checking out the recent one, which covers 'Enterprise'). I also like to check out the Back Trek episodes of Triangulum Studios (and occasionally a few other videos as well).
 
Last edited:
wondering if you have any favorite 'Star Trek' fan videos/content creators on YouTube?
Not really! I must admit, I prefer reading opinions rather than watching/listening to them. I'll definitely give your suggestions a look.
 
With season 4 of Discovery now being into its half-season hiatus until some time in February, I must say that most of the episodes so far have impressed me a fair bit. Feels like the show has finally, literally discovered itself and found a good balance. It is still not perfect nor great (and have several of the same problems, such as the at times excessive sentimental approach), but I feel more invested in what is going now than what came before. What do you think of the new season, @B-Boy?
 
I must confess, I haven't watched it yet! I intend to binge it after the season is finished airing.
 
@B-Boy, Oh I didn't know you were a binge watcher. I suppose you have waited until the seasons are finished with all the modern Treks (or is it just this time you've decided to do it)? Just curious here.

In other news, 'Prodigy' is back and it is looking good (How I wish the seasons for the new animated 'Treks' weren't just 10 episodes long).
 
I suppose you have waited until the seasons are finished with all the modern Treks (or is it just this time you've decided to do it)? Just curious here.
Only Discovery since I'm not particularly invested in it. I watched Picard week to week.
 
@B-Boy, what are your thoughts on The Original Series (TOS) & The Next Generation (TNG)? We've been talking a little about the others but not these and I'm curious on how you feel about the two.'

I quite like TOS. It is certainly a 1960's show and has dated in several areas, but I still think it holds up well. It's a fun classic TV series (and I like many classic shows) with a lot of surprisingly good stories, scripts & themes and progressiveness (some of which are still relevant), and I do like how they made so much out of so little with the sets and whatnot: It naturally has a lot of cheese but that's part of the charm & while the outdated values are unfortunate and laughable, I can overlook those as it being product of its time. Too bad that it gets little respect nowadays & being deemed unwatchably dated by modern audiences.

TNG is a nice evolution of everything introduced and set up in the classic series and is, by all accounts, pretty much the quintessential go-to Trek experience. It may not have the camraderie of the big three that TOS had and it is a little stuffier and "perfect", but what works here really works (well, after season 1, at least), balancing the characters, plotlines, themes & whatnot really well. It shows it's age (very late 80's-early 90's) but still holds up. While TOS is the original and rightfully remains a classic series, TNG is a great sequel and a nice Trek update for "modern times". It is one of the best, but still not my favorite.

Also, I must ask, what are your thoughts on the Star Trek subreddit? I must say half the time they are fine, half the time they just really irk me with the extremepro-TNG/VOY and anti-TOS/DS9 nature (For instance, I often read about folks there "struggling" with DS9's first couple of seasons, some call them garbage, but TNG S1&2 often seem excused. Also, TOS is often viewed with smug contempt there (or is ignored & left out from discussions) which feels like a shame.
 
Last edited:
@CousinMerl Happy to offer some more general thoughts about all the incarnations of Trek (well, those I've seen at least):

TOS – Dated and occasionally uncomfortable to watch, but absolutely essential and unquestionably great. I have tremendous respect for The Original Series – it not only established the foundation and template for all the Trek that followed, but was conceived and embraced by people who had lived through arguably the very worst period of human history. It’s extraordinary to me that something so optimistic and progressive yet rational and objectivist could emerge in the wake of such dark times. That ethos is unique and sacrosanct, underpinning Trek and separating it from most everything else that has ever graced the television screen. It (and TOS by extension) is very dear to my heart. Much like playing a very old video game, it can be cringe-worthy to sit through some episodes, but others hold up extremely well. I also love most of the films particularly II, IV and VI.
  • Top 10 Episodes – The Corbomite Manoeuvre, Balance of Terror, The Galileo Seven, Space Seed, Errand of Mercy, The City on the Edge of Forever, Mirror Mirror, The Doomsday Machine, The Trouble with Tribbles, The Enterprise Incident
  • Honourable Mentions – The Enemy Within, Dagger of the Mind, Tomorrow is Yesterday, Obsession, All Our Yesterdays
TNG – My first exposure to Trek as a very young child was The Next Generation. It is, therefore, my baseline and almost always the first of the incarnations that come to mind whenever I think of Trek. Many of the fundamental values and philosophies I live by and believe in come from TNG (atheism, egalitarianism, open-mindedness, duty to the truth, adherence to logic, and betterment of the self). Picard embodies and espouses all of these and is by far my favourite of the various captains (Patrick Stewart is the greatest actor across the entire Trek canon). It’s still incredible to me that such an evolved character (who is staunchly atheist, rational, and empirical among other things) was ever developed in the first place let alone accepted by TV audiences at the time. He (and the show by extension) has occasionally been criticised for being sanctimonious and unrelatable, but that’s the entire point – Trek is humanist myth and its characters are (supposed to be) larger than life. They have evolved (socially, culturally, economically, and politically) to a point where they are better than us in every way and that’s how it should be – that utopian and optimistic view of the future is the key to Trek’s enduring appeal. It’s what makes Trek special and uniquely powerful.

The first two seasons of TNG are shaky, but it really hit its stride the moment Michael Piller came on board for season 3. That and season 4 are perhaps the show’s best (though my personal favourite is six), extricating itself from the shadow of TOS and forging its own distinct identity. Curiously, despite its incredible success and popularity, TNG arguably has the spottiest track record of the Berman-era Trek shows in terms of episode-by-episode quality (season 5 is especially inconsistent). It also ran out of steam towards the end (and was starting to buckle under the strain of the burgeoning anti-Trek attitudes emanating from DS9), but the series finale is an unequivocal masterpiece (easily my favourite Trek episode of all time). The subsequent films were…less than stellar overall, but I have fondness for each of them. First Contact is well and truly the best of the four TNG motion pictures (featuring an ending that ranks alongside if not surmounts the greatest Trek moments), but the rest are varying degrees of flawed. Generations was too messy, Insurrection too lightweight, and Nemesis too deficient a conclusion. I wish the crew had been given a better send-off and I would have liked a final film that was a more ensemble feature (perhaps featuring Q and/or cast from the other shows).
  • Top 10 Episodes – The Measure of a Man, Who Watches the Watchers, The Offspring, The Best of Both Worlds, I Borg, The Inner Light, Ship in a Bottle, Tapestry, The Chase, All Good Things
  • Honourable Mentions – Q Who, Deja Q, Yesterday’s Enterprise, Family, Future Imperfect, Data’s Day, The Wounded, Darmok, Cause and Effect, The First Duty
I have more to say about DS9, VOY, ENT and the new shows, but I’ll share those later in the week.

As for the Trek subreddit, I don't have much of an opinion. I've never gleaned anti-TOS sentiment from it before, but I hardly visit often enough to say either way! Like most subs, I think it's shallow and not all that insightful. The Daystrom Institute subreddit is better, but I usually go straight to Jammers for Trek discussion.
 
Last edited:
@B-Boy, Those are some hefty opnions, but I'm not complaining as I like to read some in-depth thoughts on the series' and yours are a bit of a treat to read, almost making me feel I should've written more (I also like additional top episodes lists. I really should do my own, lol!). I agree with a lot of what you say overall of both of them, such as TNG being the essential Trek in a lot of ways (but the best of TOS is as essential, for example one such as 'Devil In The Dark' which I think could just as easily have been made in the Berman era). I'm looking forward to hear your in-depth takes on the other shows (despite you already having voiced a lot about DS9 & VOY I suppose there's more).

I was thinking on what you say about the TNG films and well, In my last post I almost said myself that while I really enjoy them (even the less good ones), they did lack the magic of the series which was something special (well, at least when it comes to post season 2, when the show really took a jump in quality with season 3, which I think remains one of the strongest seasons of the franchise. The first two seasons had a lot of awkwardness, cringe & stiffness (and that blasted arrogant human superiority complex with the "We've moved past this and that in our utopia!" was annoying, especially in season 1)). The TOS movies managed to recapture the magic of the original series, but TNG didn't quite hit the right marks with the movies (and to be honest, I'd have traded one of the later ones for a DS9 movie or crossover film, easily).

The Daystrom Institute reddit is underrated. I like the in-depth stuff over there (much like how the discussion at Jammer's site turn out). The regular Trek reddit can indeed be pretty shallow (and petty at times, such as with the abeformentioned disrespect toward TOS and weird dislike and negativity toward DS9), but has its moments as said (and I like the official episode discussion threads).

Also, I almost forgot: Regarding TAS, The Animated Series from the 1970's, what do you feel about that one? I almost forgot. I think it is surprisingly good, if not kinda great at times. It has that typically stiff and budgeted 70's animation (understandable, as that decade was probably the nadir of animation) and some spotty vocal performances, but I think the writing and showrunning surprisingly elevates the material with some really good stories (and I love the wacky creativity with the designs, colors and art, such as the backgrounds).
 
Last edited:
@CousinMerl I haven't seen TAS! I must get around to that one of these days.

DS9 – To say I have issues with Deep Space Nine would be a colossal understatement. Don’t get me wrong, there a lot that’s good (even great) about it. It paved the way for many of the serialised TV shows that flourished thereafter, multi-season story and character arcs were skilfully executed for the most part, numerous individual episodes were of exceptional quality, and the production values remain impressive to this day (a shame it and VOY won’t be remastered). It is, undoubtedly, a terrific and highly influential show…in the literary sense. As Trek, however, it falls well short of the mark.

Under showrunner Ira Steven Behr, DS9 took every opportunity to denigrate and dismantle the Trek ethos. The religious apologism surrounding the Bajorans and Prophets, the incongruity of Maquis demands and motivations, the frequent mockery and revisionism of an evolved humanity, and the recurring arguments that Federation ideals are naïve if not illusions that easily buckle under external pressure is, well, problematic and upsetting to say the least. Behr (who felt ‘creatively trapped’ on TNG) reshaped Trek to align more closely with his own cynical values and philosophical beliefs. TOS and TNG championed secularism and rationality whereas DS9 favoured credulity and emotionalism. TOS and TNG espoused idealism and altruism whereas DS9 glamourized cynicism and opportunism. TOS and TNG had larger-than-life characters that represented an optimistic extrapolation of our trajectory as a species, but DS9 had human-scale characters that behaved as we do today. This was a cardinal sin, siphoning the romantic ideals and mythic archetypes that differentiated and elevated Trek. DS9 has been lauded for its ambition and bravery in being more realistic and relatable, but in doing so it was more conventional and less inspiring than TOS or TNG.

Arguments against Roddenberrian ideals are fine (even necessary to test their strength and validity), but DS9 posited them in dishonest and insidious ways. Hard Time is a great example. O’Brien says that “growing up, they used to tell us…Humanity had evolved, that mankind had outgrown hate and rage”. He says none of it is true because he succumbed to those feelings and killed a man. This is nonsense. Firstly, Trek had never previous suggested such an asinine thing – humans still experience the same emotions they ever have or ever will. It’s not their ‘feelings’ or technology that evolved – it’s the society they created and the ideology upon which it is underpinned. Humanity evolved and accomplished wonders by creating a society that allowed its positive qualities to flourish and its negative qualities to recede. The direction of human evolution hinges in large part on our society and the qualities it cultivates in its citizens. Trek, as speculative fiction, began by assuming that our altruistic and compassionate aspects will overpower our selfish and hostile ones. Consider how far we’ve come in the last 350 years and imagine how far we might go over the next 350 years.

In Hard Time, O’Brien lost his evolved humanity because he was tortured for 20 years. Not because he realised his humanity was a façade created by Federation propaganda. Rather than comment on the damage O’Brien sustains as a result of such a traumatic experience, it more or less argues that 24th century humans have been indoctrinated and that their ‘evolved sensibilities’ are a flimsy veneer. It’s an egregious anachronism intent on directly attacking Roddenberry’s utopian vision. It’s also just plain depressing. Why do people want to see stuff like this in Trek when you can find it almost everywhere else? Why do people enjoy seeing Trek characters violate their principals or turn into paranoid and deceitful savages? Is it because they’re turned off by seeing people who are otherwise ethically and philosophically superior? Do they want to see them taken down a peg so as to feel better about themselves as they are? What’s the point!?

By all means, deconstruct Roddenberry’s vision if you want, but do so in a way that’s consistent with the universe as established in TOS and (most of) TNG. Don’t create straw men and misrepresent Trek ideals to do so. There are many more examples of these anachronisms (don’t even get my started on Sisko) and, consequently, much of DS9 is fundamentally antithetical to and incompatible with Trek. I simply cannot reconcile it even if I can enjoy and appreciate the show’s literary strengths. That being said, there are great episodes and moments scattered throughout the series (including Hard Time up until its denouement). It also has a stellar supporting cast including Garak, Martok, Weyoun, and Dukat (up until the last season at least). The Dominion War arc was a dramatically sumptuous one with some of the most exciting set-pieces and powerful drama I’ve ever seen on television. Odo is also a great character that ranks among the best that Trek has ever provided.

Top 10 Episodes – Duet, Necessary Evil, Whispers, The Wire, Improbable Cause, The Visitor, The Quickening, Trials and Tribble-ations, Children of Time, Far Beyond the Stars

Honourable Mentions – Dax, Hard Time, Rocks and Shoals, Waltz, Chimera
 
Last edited:
@B-Boy, Oh wow. Just... wow. The intense dislike you have for this show near shocked me. Just gonna warn you that I have a lot of critcism on your writings. This is calling for some writing to be done:

Your intense dislike of DS9 I just cannot agree with, even if I wasn't a big fan of the show. I knew you wasn't so into it but I never expected this amount of criticism and hate (to the point of having very few true, actual positives). You make it out to sound like the Devil in 'Trek' form, attacking and betraying/ruining the frnachise, when I feel it is the opposite, rather adding and exploring new aspects of the franchise, while still feeling like a piece of 'Star Trek' (and I assume you like the pre-season 4 seasons more overall, as they didn't have Behr as showrunner? I'm just wondering since you make it seem like he essentially ruined the show).

I loved the more "realistic" approach, the grayer themes (not so black and while and moralizing as say TNG) and there not always being easy answers, the complexity of the cast (which I think is strong), the strong arcs (both story and character-wise), the diversity in storytelling (which includes the exploration of a highly religious species) & how it deconstructed the utopia, all without ruining anything IMO. I think it was balanced, as opposed to modern Trek's like 'Discovery' & 'Picard' which really doubled down on the cynicism, pessimism, dourness & darkness & hyper emotionality and whatnot (actually, when reading your post, it actually felt like a criticism of those two, not DS9. I mean damn, a lot of the criticism fit those a whole lot better than it does for this show, but I digress).

Don't take this the wrong way, but It definitely feels like you love the world of TOS & TNG too that you simply cannot truly accept a darker & more morally complex & complicated 'Trek', which do seem to be a factor that turn a lot of people away from the show. Maybe it is that I'm a Star Wars fan too that I'm used to the elements of DS9 that doesn't appear in the prior shows that have that 'Trek' formula, but I found it refreshing to get something really new, a different tone and style, serialized storytelling, flawed characters to explore and develop, a space station instead of a ship, complex intrigue and politics, intriguing themes & that realism (including exploring how it is not always everything has worked out when the next episode rolls around). It really pushed the envelope forth trying new things.

I think that saying the show is "cynical", "pessimistic", "mocking", "denigrating", "deptessing", "betraying", and all the other negatives you used is a great big disservice as all of those things are either not true or pure exaggerations that are blown up out of proportion or just plain old misunderstandings, seemingly coming from some form of bias.

Sure, it is really different from what came before, but yournegativity toward it and belief it betrayed what 'Trek' stood for rings of exaggeration and also some misunderstandings here and there, but yeah, if one thinks the franchise must stay true to its roots at all times and demand it follow the guidelines and "Roddenberry's Vision" with the perfect utopia and all, even when being critical and deconstructing things (as DS9 often did), then yeah, the show is not for you. It's a simple as that and I understand.

Gonna comment on some of your writings since I cannot resist:

The religious apologism surrounding the Bajorans and Prophets,

What apologism? It was exploring a religious race of people, showing how religion was interpreted and used by various people & didn't show it as all good or all bad (as I've seen on the reddit, it seems like a lot of 'Trek' purist hates the mere concept of religion in their shows and immediately dismisses it as something like "Bajoran bullshit"). I thought it's some of the more interesting aspects of the show (also challenging the previously atheist mindset of 'Trek' which was interesting).

the incongruity of Maquis demands and motivations,

I don't think they were too hard to understand with their motivations and demands (wanting to live in peace on their colonies, ignoring any treaties made with those Cardassians & fighting for their freedom even when it meant falling to terrorism, which did happen), but I guess they could have made things really clear to avoid any confusion or doubt.

the frequent mockery and revisionism of an evolved humanity

It never mocked or tried to revision the notion of humanity being evolved, but tried to explore it and show other points of views and ways of thinking regarding it. I think early TNG's (S1 & 2) notion of an evolved humanity was horrid, though (with the smug hew-mon arrogance and moralizing, near mocking other people and races for their "savagery" and thinking "We're so great and perfect") so it was nice to see them give that a few critical jabs here and there (which I saw many of those moments as), not mockery.

the recurring arguments that Federation ideals are naïve if not illusions that easily buckle under external pressure is, well, problematic and upsetting to say the least. Behr (who felt ‘creatively trapped’ on TNG) reshaped Trek to align more closely with his own cynical values and philosophical beliefs. TOS and TNG championed secularism and rationality whereas DS9 favoured credulity and emotionalism. TOS and TNG espoused idealism and altruism whereas DS9 glamourized cynicism and opportunism. TOS and TNG had larger-than-life characters that represented an optimistic extrapolation of our trajectory as a species, but DS9 had human-scale characters that behaved as we do today. This was a cardinal sin, siphoning the romantic ideals and mythic archetypes that differentiated and elevated Trek. DS9 has been lauded for its ambition and bravery in being more realistic and relatable, but in doing so it was more conventional and less inspiring than TOS or TNG.

I don't see any kind of problem showing the Federation isn't perfect but has flaws and even some dark sides. It is a little cynical when comparing it to TOS &TNG, especially with how dark the show could be at times, but it still feels in line with what has been hinted to as on TNG (which also showed some problems and issues with the Federation, Starfleet & various "Badmirals") so it was more an natural evolution and a want to give some character development & show new sides of what we knew.

I never felt it commited some "cardinal sin" or "siphoned" the ideals and archetypes of classic 'Trek, but pushed things forward to show easy it is to be "a saint in paradise" as Sisko himself put it in a classic scene (which really sums up the show). The show really tackled a lot things, issues and problems that we never saw in the prior two or so shows, but dealt with war, religious conflicts, consequences, explored the human condition (the show is, at heart, about the characters and their journeys) & whatnot, even if it turned ugly and showed things we didn't think we'd want to see or still feel conlicted about, but I found it handled it all well.

Furtermore, I don't see a problem with it having several characters that behave like we do today, as it did hunanize them a whole lot more and make them relatable (and at least in my opinion without becoming more conventional or any less inspiring). It naturally is a more grounded show and that is fine, setting it apart from the prior ones and characters feeling more like real people (even some non-humans) I think is a positive (and then there's Odo, often going around trying to understand humanoids and making a great snarky commenter on our human follies before gradually gaining more of an understanding. Quark as well.).

Arguments against Roddenberrian ideals are fine (even necessary to test their strength and validity), but DS9 posited them in dishonest and insidious ways. Hard Time is a great example. O’Brien says that “growing up, they used to tell us…Humanity had evolved, that mankind had outgrown hate and rage”. He says none of it is true because he succumbed to those feelings and killed a man. This is nonsense. Firstly, Trek had never previous suggested such an asinine thing – humans still experience the same emotions they ever have or ever will. It’s not their ‘feelings’ or technology that evolved – it’s the society they created and the ideology upon which it is underpinned. Humanity evolved and accomplished wonders by creating a society that allowed its positive qualities to flourish and its negative qualities to recede. The direction of human evolution hinges in large part on our society and the qualities it cultivates in its citizens. Trek, as speculative fiction, began by assuming that our altruistic and compassionate aspects will overpower our selfish and hostile ones. Consider how far we’ve come in the last 350 years and imagine how far we might go over the next 350 years.

In Hard Time, O’Brien lost his evolved humanity because he was tortured for 20 years. Not because he realised his humanity was a façade created by Federation propaganda. Rather than comment on the damage O’Brien sustains as a result of such a traumatic experience, it more or less argues that 24th century humans have been indoctrinated and that their ‘evolved sensibilities’ are a flimsy veneer. It’s an egregious anachronism intent on directly attacking Roddenberry’s utopian vision.

Calm down, dude. I think you're looking into that way too much there. I don't think we should take what O'Brien said in that episode (an "O'Brien Must Suffer" story to boot & after the fact he had mentally spent a long time locked up) at face value, at least I didn't.

It is true that the franchise had, with TNG, wanting to present a more evolved form of humanity and that is great, but the notion that in DS9, people have been indoctrinated with lies of "evolved sensibilities" is kinda ridiculous IMO: Nothing truly suggest that, but rather showing that O'Brien, who's often used as the everyman human stand-in on the show, would obviously say such a thing at that moment, when reflecting on what he did, as he always felt like someone whom, by choice, chose to live by the ideals of the Federation, which include a more enlightened starte (and I am sure a lot of humans have been living up to that point would have used it as well).

He did not lose his "evolved humanity" but rather saw how he wasn't as morally upright as he thought he was (when subjected to something as traumatizing as he was), showing some of that realness that I think marks the show. It really humanizes the characters, Starfleet/Federation and humanity itself by showing it isn't really as some have preached in the previous shows. Not an anachronism or an attack on the utopic vision, but an exploration of the franchise, pushing forward and testing various things we've been subjected to in TOS & TNG to see how they hold up under scrutiny (and it doesn't have anything to do with indoctrination, but with a belief that people still strive for).

I like the term "Exploring the human condition", which the show does. It asks a lot of hard questions pertaining to humanity and how it faces adversity under challenging and/or trying times out there in the wilderness of space (a long way from the heart of the Federation and on a non-Federation space station which Starfleet doesn't even own). 'Hard Time' is only one of the examples.

It’s also just plain depressing. Why do people want to see stuff like this in Trek when you can find it almost everywhere else? Why do people enjoy seeing Trek characters violate their principals or turn into paranoid and deceitful savages? Is it because they’re turned off by seeing people who are otherwise ethically and philosophically superior? Do they want to see them taken down a peg so as to feel better about themselves as they are? What’s the point!?

I don't know what to say at this point. I don't see characters violating principles or turn into paranoid, decietful savages but rather characters having their principles tested (either standing true to them or bending them) and having their humanity (or alienity, considering some are non-humans) explored and yes, put to a test. There are still those who are ethically and philosophically superior and that's good, but the show also showed how much it means to still be human, flaws and all, and how we can overcome obstacles hat might demand us to change some of our common views and opinions (some of which we take for granted. I think that if anything, the show really had some great explorations of a lot of interesting things that feel more like the real world.

Also, the show is plain depressing? Nope. I see plenty of hope and strife in there, with a great and diverse cast of various characters that are often faced with difficulties, problems, conflicts & more (many not so easy or with a given solution) & there's a lot of humor to boot and a ton of classic Trek stories and drama. I can see why some call 'Picard' (the show) or 'Discovery' depressing, where they take the darker aspects of DS9 to absurd levels, but I don't think DS9 is depressing, unless one, again, want the worldview represented in TOS & TNG at all costs without wanting it to really bend it's aspects, take chances & dare go in an completely different direction.

By all means, deconstruct Roddenberry’s vision if you want, but do so in a way that’s consistent with the universe as established in TOS and (most of) TNG. Don’t create straw men and misrepresent Trek ideals to do so. There are many more examples of these anachronisms (don’t even get my started on Sisko) and, consequently, much of DS9 is fundamentally antithetical to and incompatible with Trek. I simply cannot reconcile it even if I can enjoy and appreciate the show’s literary strengths.

Feels like I'm repeating myself at this point, but it is consistent with TOS & TNG, just taking things some steps further to show a fuller and more realistic world where not everything is given and where one can fix problems and just leave & hope things will get better TNG-style, but show more of an outlaw wild west at the edge of the galaxy (it's like a western show, really) where the morals and ethics of the Federation & humanity fall under pressure and might cause compromises to be made.

I don't see these straw men and misreprentation, but a new view that tests the franchise to its limit and show what it really can show an accomplish (with all its other ingredients) when not having to strictly adhere to the guidelines, but did it betray what came before? No, not unless one isn't open for the franchise to try all new things and look at what came before in a fresh, new light, even when those things might not be up to par with the expectations one might have. It really takes a look at things from a more "real" and feasible perspective.

Also, Sisko is a neat character. Not always making the right decisions (and some questionable), but making human ones and he certainly get things done, even though he has to make some difficult decisions a lot of the time (and he's a cool guy, great to see a lead in the franchise who's a loving father, but also a badass fighter and a great cook, lol). He's had some bad moments, but that goes for all of the captain's throughout the series (but compared to Picard and Kirk, he does fall a little short, but yeah, he's good by me).

Though to soften my huge disagreements I have with your intense dislike of DS9, while it definitely feels you love the TOS & TNG ideals and ethics too much to really like DS9 (I had an easier time getting into that than TNG to be honest, finding it's more open and less strict style comparable to TOS with the interactions of the main cast not being as formal but more casual), I definitely understand you finding DS9, with it's darker, complex and not so squeaky clean nor fully utopic take on 'Trek', not being to your liking.

Some do want that pure Trek' feeling and that TOS, TNG & even the inferior VOY (IMO) gives in droves and you are one of those who easily find the whole vibe of DS9 a turn off since it's nothing like what came before (which I'm thinking is what you grew up with loving)and that is all okay. I'm open for new interpretations that challenges or develops the views given before and does things really differently despite still feeling like a part of the 'Trek' universe (which I feel it does). DS9 offers (with it's multifaceted, diverse & complicated takes) just speaks to me and has me both entertained and intrigued and often makes me think, relate & even inspire at times.

That being said, there are great episodes and moments scattered throughout the series (including Hard Time up until its denouement). It also has a stellar supporting cast including Garak, Martok, Weyoun, and Dukat (up until the last season at least). The Dominion War arc was a dramatically sumptuous one with some of the most exciting set-pieces and powerful drama I’ve ever seen on television. Odo is also a great character that ranks among the best that Trek has ever provided.

Nice to see you like some things of it at least (and those positives I agree about). I suppose you don't like the main cast other than Odo much? I think that they rank up there with that of TNG, with the likes of Odo, Quark & Kira standing out as franchise-greats (and the odd friendship between the former two give some of the greatest scenes and best humor).

Also, now I see why you're a big fan of Voyager, which is more classic 'Trek' that is easier to get into and enjoy (like I did, and it did have a lot of good stuff), even though I find it a kinda cowardly show afraid of changes, risks and some real continuity for the more part (I think what bothered me the most about it was how strangely conservative it felt, but more on that later, probably).

I definitely took too long when making this post but I guess that's what happens when one of my favorite 'Trek' shows get slammed with a lot of negative criticism (and it made for an interesting one to answer) 😎
 
Last edited:
@CousinMerl I appreciate and respect your response (even though I disagree with much of it). It will take me some time to write my own, but I just want to say in the meantime that I admire the passion with which you defend your position on the DS9 debate. Disagreements such as these can get very heated (and personal) on the internet based on my experience so I just want to stress something:

Please remember that my criticisms of DS9 are not (and never will be) criticisms of you or your love for the show. I would never presume to tell you that your enjoyment of DS9 is wrong or misplaced regardless of what I personally think of it. I just want to stress this because I sense that, given the strength of our opposing views, neither of us will concede in the end (it might come down to a significant difference in philosophy and preferred dramatic structure neither of which is inherently wrong). I'd hate to see either of us get frustrated or irked by the other as I really enjoy chatting with you!

In the spirit of Trek, let’s see if we can grow to understand each other on this topic. Watch this space! :)
 
Last edited:
@B-Boy, Hey, no worries. I get what you are saying and agree.

I definitely understand you and your feeling on the show (and how it goes against your preferred style of the franchise, the most commonly known) but yeah, I got inspired enough to create an opposing post with criticism on your takes (and there's a lot of very hot takes that I honestly don't think I've encountered before on Reddit or not). DS9 is often still a divisive show and I get it (with how it challenges "Roddenberry's Vision" and trying to show how feasible it really is out there in deep space, far from Earth) and there will understandably be very vocal detractors to it and its ideas, takes and deconstructions (but I found it refreshing & like something new).

Debates can get very out of hand like you said (and I've seen some very toxic, hateful ones at that) and I really don't want that (despite our opinions on the show, the morals and whatnot really being the opposite, with me being a little more open to the franchise branching out with a new take that challenges what came before (with new takes and explorations of old ideals) and you definitely preferring the "classic" brand of 'Trek' that stay true to the overall future presented with "Roddenberry's Vision" (and this comes from someone who loves classic 'Trek' with the utopian vision of the future and all that which is so nicely optimistic and something to strive toward).

I also don't want to let my criticisms (now or in the future) to be misinterpreted as an attack on you or your like/dislike of any of these shows or tell you that you are wrong to think and feel like you do about it (even if some of my rants above might've seemed like that, in which case I really do apologize). I've too understood that we indeed do have different opinions based on what we want and don't want to see in 'Trek' (morals, themes, stories, characterizations, etc.) and that is all good and fine. Everyone should like and dislike what they want (unless it turns to personal attacks in which case it's gone too far, but I'm sure it won't come to that here). Also, I want to make it clear I'm not doing some DS9 gatekeeping (the show has flaws, like all the 'Trek' shows of which none is what I call "perfect").

Despite it probably being true that neither will back down from our opinions on DS9 (and I suspect it's also the case of VOY as well, if the opposite) due to the strength of our views and arguments, I hope we can agree to disagree (and yeah, hopefully not get frustrated or annoyed by the other, even when the opinions might be extreme or quite the opposite). After my writing in my previous post, I am a little regretful over some things I wrote (that I feel might've come off as too harsh and critical at times) and was worried you might lash out in some way (which would've been too bad considering our otherwise nice chatting, both here and in other threads) so I'm glad you're understanding.

Like you say, maybe we can eventually understand the other and our viewpoints in this topic, which is what I hope going forward. It's been some interesting debates and discussions so far and I like that and hope we can continue.
 
Last edited:
@B-Boy, I saw those news yesterday and was pretty surprised (and I had to make sure it wasn't April 1st still). I didn't see the teaser until now though and it is a pretty sweet one (and I love hearing those snippets from the James Horner & Jerry Goldsmith scores. How I miss those guys).

I guess it makes sense they'd bring the whole crew back for the third (and last) season as it feels like the staff & production crew have been adamant on this being the Big Finale (and hopefully the character's will all get a great sendoff... again).

Speaking of Star Trek: Picard, I really feel that Season 2 has been a considerable improvement (after not being into the first mess of a season too much): This time it feels more assured (both writing-wise and regarding the characters), fun and pretty funny at times & the dramatic material is better balanced (I think I like the show more than Discovery now, to be completely honest). Assuming you're also watching (unless you've decided to wait like with season 4 of Discovery), what do you think of it so far?

EDIT: Having seen Picard Season 2 to the end, I don't look back on it favorably, feeling it fell off the more it progressed, especially in the second half. Due to struggling with enjoying season 1, I got some goodwill toward season 2, but that didn't last very long afterwards. Also, 'Strange New Worlds' make season 2 look even worse. Get your act together, showrunners.
 
Last edited:
@B-Boy, do you consider eventually returning to this thread to post some more about the franchise? Would be interesting to hear if you have anything additional on DS9 before you move forward to Voyager.

I'm not gonna say much more on DS9, but I'll recommend the abeformentioned movieblog writer's pieces on the show, that pretty much explain why I find the show to still totally work (and the reasons why I'm a fan & find it is unfairly maligned a lot of the time for it's somewhay take on the franchise). I've been reading many of his posts on the various shows so I figured I'll mention it again.

Here's one post (a 25th anniversary one) that more or less sum up (for a most part) why I like the show and don't find it to betray or spoil the franchise, but rather expands it (to boldly go where no Trek has gone before...)

 
Last edited:
@B-Boy, do you consider eventually returning to this thread to post some more about the franchise? Would be interesting to hear if you have anything additional on DS9 before you move forward to Voyager.
Totally man! Thanks for the link, by the way. Will be sure to check that out!

As for Picard, I haven't watched season 2 yet. I think I'll be able to view and appraise it better once I can see it in one or two sittings.
 
So how about that 'Strange New Worlds' show, huh?

Eight episodes in and I've been enjoying it greatly so far. I think it only took one or two episodes before I knew it was my favorite modern live-action 'Trek' show, hitting all the right beats necessary to make for a super entertaining series that get the spirit of the franchise. I don't know if it's my favorite of all the modern ones yet (needs more episodes before I can say for sure) but it is still real good so far. Anyone else out there watching it? I really think it makes for an excellent weekly viewing.
 
Really enjoyed strange new worlds. Every character is great, I love the retro-future set design, I like the way the episodic nature embraces the variety of trek (goofy hijinks, horror, time hijinks, costume hijinks, etc.). I'm sad that I have to wait a year for more.

(season finale + season 2 casting spoilers)
 Once I realized they were doing "balance of terror," I had to pause and rewatch that episode. It's amusing how much of the dialogue is taken verbatim, creating a sort of eeriness. Ortegas in particular seemed possessed by the spirit of the bigoted guy from the original. I liked the sad detail that the couple that was going to be married is always doomed. However I think watching the episodes back-to-back did no favors to the guy playing kirk. The deck is stacked against him, playing one of the most iconic roles in pop culture history, and I respect that he's not doing a shatner impression but ... I dunno... I just couldn't read him as kirk and found it distracting. Hopefully I will warm up to him in season 2.  

Over the past year I finished watching the TOS-era movies, watched about 20 of the "best" TNG episodes (I really wish I had seen "darmok" before the lower decks episode where kayshon is introduced), and watched generations. I am going to watch or rewatch a few episodes of discovery and tos that relate to strange new worlds and then move on to deep space nine and the tng-era movies. and lower decks and prodigy whenever they come back.
 
With the season now being over, I can safely say that I agree with @Dark Homer that 'Strange New Worlds' is super enjoyable so far. I mean, I'm positively surprised it turned out as well as it dod.

The visuals and sets were great (retro-futurist looking indeed), I really loved the cast and their dynamics & developments (makes me sad how the bridge crew on Discovery always get sidelined for a strict focus on the leads) and that episodic approach (while still having some form of serialization) works wonders (and really do allow for a variety of styles and stories). One of the best first season's of the franchise, I'd say, also (Season finale & Lower Decks S2 finale spoilers)  interesting it ended sort of like Lower Deck's second season, with a major character being arrested. Hopefully they'll not make it a habit, lol ).

Also, on the season finale (warning for spoilers again),  . I liked how it was intentionally a variant of the classic 'Balance Of Terror' episode from the Original Series: I like such instances where they revisit the events from an older episode and have them play out quite differently and showing us a different version of that story here made for an interesting and intense "What If...?' story). I also noticed that it had some other TOS moments and styles, including the return of the Romulan music motif, the dramatic zoom and how some shots were lit a litte bit differently, with a lightsource on some of the actor's eyes .

 .The new James Kirk actor (Paul Wesley) did fine and I liked that he didn't just mimic Shatner, but I have to say he felt quite stiff, wooden and humorless so there's room for improvement, which I am sure will come as he is confirmed to return season 2. What I felt was missing was that glimmer in the eye that Shatner had as Kirk, along with that charisma and attitude that I felt should have been present in some form; he just didn't fully sell the idea that this is Kirk yet. It was, to me, quite obvious the actor isn't quite sure how to play this slightly younger version of Kirk, but yeah, I'm positive he'll find his groove soon.) .

Really too bad that that Season 2 will quite some time away, but at least there was recently the news that filming wrapped on it which gives me hope that it will be less than 12 months away. Really want to see where it goes from here (and oh man how I wish it was more than just 10 episodes. I know that productions like this with the sets, CGI and whatnot is costly, but I think it could stand for at least 3-4 more episodes a season, even if it means that assets will have to be reused and bottle episodes set mainly on the ship will have to be a thing, just like in the days of now classic Trek. 10 episodes work for some shows, but here I want a little bit more).
 
Currently 4 episodes deep into Strange New Worlds and, yeah, it's well and truly the best Trek material since the Berman era (that's not a particularly high benchmark, but it's a start). The return to a semi-serialised episodic format with an ensemble cast solving problems like professionals has done wonders and I'm a big fan of Pike already (whose awareness of his fate lends him a pathos that's unique among all the Trek captains). I hope the quality sustains and that it signals good things for the final season of Picard which has been a mess of a show thus far with only a few good moments/episodes.

even if it means that assets will have to be reused and bottle episodes set mainly on the ship will have to be a thing, just like in the days of now classic Trek. 10 episodes work for some shows, but here I want a little bit more).
I'd also like to see a return of longer seasons. There was a certain joy in going on those journeys even if it meant stomaching more than a few forgettable, mediocre and/or outright bad episodes. Some bottle episodes rank among the best Trek has ever produced!
 
Last edited:
Strange, you quoting me didn't show up in my notification bar, @B-Boy.

I'd also like to see a return of longer seasons. There was a certain joy in going on those journeys even if it meant stomaching more than a few forgettable, mediocre and/or outright bad episodes. Some bottle episodes rank among the best Trek has ever produced!

I find it silly whenever people clamor for extended seasons and the answer from other fans are always some variation of "LOL the 25 episode seasons are never coming back! Get used to these short ones!" as I'm sure with willpower they can use said assets (sets, costumes, CGI) and even repurpose some with some alterations to add a handful of new episodes without having it all cost a fortune.

Every episode doesn't have to be costly with all new CGI, sets and whatnot (and yeah, bottle episodes can indeed be really good as the franchise has proven a perfect cost-cutting way that can easily add a few episodes to the roster. Would certainly love to see SNW do some of those "cheaper" ones. They could even just do some slice of life stories with just the main cast on the ship; some of those episodes I really like from the older shows are these simple character-based drama ones with little to no flash nor effects).

Again, if there's a will there's a way.
 
Over the past year I finished watching the TOS-era movies, watched about 20 of the "best" TNG episodes (I really wish I had seen "darmok" before the lower decks episode where kayshon is introduced), and watched generations. I am going to watch or rewatch a few episodes of discovery and tos that relate to strange new worlds and then move on to deep space nine and the tng-era movies. and lower decks and prodigy whenever they come back.

Have you watched any episodes of TOS? I think that there is a lot of must see episodes in there. Too bad that there's too many TNG-era fans who mock, deride and dismiss the older show as dated nonsense that deserves to be overwritten & retconned (the latter of which often makes me laugh, I'm sorry) when it does, in fact, have a lot of great premises, ideas, themes & solid scripts (I think it's easy to overlook the dated aspects such as the look & attitudes. I find all the Trek shows to be products of their times and it really shows there, but if one can get past that & watch with the right mindset, it's a classic show with a lot to enjoy).

Also, I'd just like to add that I hope you'll enjoy DS9. Being much more serialized, it is a bit of slow burn at first, but it gradually builds & picks up the pace, I think that it does the best job overall being a bit of everything, doing a lot of deep dives and explorations with complex characters, developments, arcs and more, expanding the mythology yet also doing standalone stories with some great comedy & drama episodes: I like how it feels more real and lived, daring to be more flawed and human yet still striving forward for a brighter future despite how dark it gets: That is the spirit of 'Trek'. I really look forward to the station being revisited next season of 'Lower Decks' (Hoping for some Quark).
 
Back
Top