@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)