Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The post I have in mind is less about start trek in particular and more about legacy sequels and adaptations in general. But to give my quick take on DS9...
For my I quite liked it but I can also see where the old school fans who didn't are coming from. Personally, I think Sisko's line from one of the early episodes where he says "It's easy to be a saint in paradise, but this is not paradise" aptly sums up the series' core thesis/recurring theme. and I feel like DS9 managed to walk a fine line of critiquing Rodenberry's utopianism while still respecting his ideals.
DS9 was in many respects a deconstruction, it was explicitly not about the Federation's flagship or it's best and brightest, it was about that shady industrial town on the border where the starfleet officer who's been assigned to keep the peace is just trying to make it to retirement rather than climb the ranks. And that's part of what I find frustrating about a lot of the rhetoric around nu-Trek, oh it's a deconstruction? We already had that, it was called DS9. It seems to me that the people currently running Star Trek genuinely don't understand what it was about Star Trek that people actually found appealing and are thus reduced to just throwing random shit at the wall to see what sticks.
DS9 is actually my favorite Star Trek series. I acknowledge that TNG is Better, I just like DS9 more. It's the side characters; people are allowed to be flawed and have conflicts. Garak and Odo and Quark make the whole series for me.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link