I liked the soap-opera type style that DS9 portrayed. I also loved the non-utopian society it communicated to the audience. The reason I have always liked Star Trek more than Star Wars is because I found more human reality in Trek. DS9 focused on that. I always loved it for that reason.
I've decided. Your completely wrong. Ds9 was very much a star trek show precisely because it would not have made sense or had the nearly the same dramatic force were it not for the backstory of all the races, organizations and politics set up by the predecessor series. And tos and tng were at their best when they incorporated story arcs, recurring characters and political intrigue rather than just monster of the week. Viz unification Q best of both worlds space seed/wrath of khan. Plus I thi
To me every single star trek series has has a different purpose, shown a different side of humanity, and been meant to demonstrate a new piece of the "human condition" as it is refered to. TOS was meant to encourage exploration of the universe. TNG was meant to explore the self and how we get along. DS9 was once we are there, how do we operate there. Voyager was if we are thrust into a new environment without a safety net, how do we pull together. And Enterprise was how do we start out.
(Cont.) Do you define a soap opera as a show that has characters that are good, by the way? The characters are well defined and contrary to some, the acting is SUPERB. Just from the main cast there is Brooks, Auberjonois, Dorn, Visitor, Meaney, Shimerman and Siddig. Then there are the recurring characters, like Alaimo, Robinson, Eisenberg and Combs. Certainly better than Shatner, Koenig, Takei, Sirtis, MacFadden, Wheaton or Burton, with only Nimoy, Stewart and Spiner to REALLY back them up.
DS9 is Trek. It just discusses humanity in a way that TOS or TNG did not. In the originals it would be thing hapens -> technobabble to fix -> MORAL In DS9 they viewed humanity in such a richer and deeper context. Instead of having big, bad enemies like nameless Klingons or the Borg, they humanized villains. Dukat was turned mass murderer to good guy and then went mad when his daughter was murdered. The Founders were turned into what they were because of the hatred and distrust of solids. (Cont.)
@0its0green0 you are right i rember just watching the female changeling making a subtle comment that she felt that it was her duity to make every soild a slave to them because they can change shape and solids can not so changelings know better then solids and must obey them for their own good and if they do not they must die for their own good. and i honestly think thats why jemhadar do not seem to fear death. because if they have to die it is for their own good.
I concur with VAder47000; DS9 was the first of the franchise to apply Roddenberry's utopian Federation to a real universe with real problems. It was also the first to give a serious analysis to non Federation cultures that didn't descend into condescending parody..ie the Ferengi. Quark is a complex character, and at times, he can actually question Federation values legitimately and convincingly. This is the kind of open mindedness that the franchise desperately needed.
I have to say I disagree. The fact that Deep Space Nine was so different from the previous shows really helped it to stand out, while it also kept the same basic qualities. You named a lot of them yourself, and I fail to see how Deep Space Nine doesn't show them.
Also, I'm very glad that you mentioned "The Visitor" by name. That was one of my favorite episodes and it doesn't quite get the credit it deserves.
But by "larger and smaller" I mean that with only limited space to explore, it meant that the writers had to find more possibilities within a more confined space.
DS9 made ST both larger and smaller at the same time. The source of your criticisms, I believe come from the show's decision to have a spacestation, rather than a starship. Stationary. We weren't jumping from one place to another, so we saw the consequences of actions (though, there were some bad episodes and bad writing, though not VOY bad) from previous episodes. Which wi erode Star Trek's idealististic tendencies. It was a way of bringing the skies of Star Trek down to ground level.
You mention a lack of substance and memorability by using yourself as an example, but again, I couldn't disagree more. I already pointed out the substance in my comments for the first part. As for being memorable? I remember the vast majority of it, including when it first started and wasn't nearly as interesting because it was too busy trying to suck up to the TNG crowd. It had good episodes, great episodes, bad episodes, and horrible episodes, and I remember most of them.
So if I were to use myself as the standard the way you do, then DS9 had a lot of substance and was a very memorable show, and TOS wasn't especially memorable because I don't remember a lot about it. To be fair, though, I haven't seen the majority of the series. The thing is, with what I did see, most of what I remember about it is rolling my eyes at the corniness that tended to go hand in hand with the series. So TOS isn't exactly timeless, either, at least in my book.
@captainexcabier Blasphemy. The unique thing about shows like TOS and The Twilight Zone, is that the stories and points put across were so damned riveting most of the time that you forgot the fucking corniness. And in those days, they had ACTORS. REAL ONES. That's why I thought Voyager was good, cause the acting was above average even though the writing was shit.
@TheEntryCode Wrong on both counts as far as I'm concerned. Robert Picardo was probably the best thing about VOY, but no amount of acting could overcome the lack of substance. And with TOS, often the acting was part of the corniness.
@captainexcabier Acting may not have been good enough for some to overcome bad writing, but it was for me mostly. And all the series I've seen (except DS9) have had a level of corniness. I see nothing corny about the actors at all for TOS, just the writing and the attitude at the time towards entertainment. And these are opinions, therefore I cannot be "wrong."
@captainexcabier Yeah, I have to agree with you there. I found much of DS9's episodes to be extremely memorable, and repeatedly enjoyable. I think it also explored issues much deeper than TOS was able to do, and that is not to discredit TOS at all, but DS9 was able to stand on what TOS accomplished and go to the next level. It had its bad moments too, like "Move Along Home", but so did TOS... "Turnabout Intruder" comes to mind.
I kind of understand what you mean about DS9 not being "Trek", or at least not traditional Trek. That's probably why I and my parents lost interest in DS9 when it began making major deviations from the ol' formula. But years later, I can appreciate what DS9 was and that it was still Trek, just very different. Of course, that difference was greatly influenced by Babylon 5 (which was a far superior show).
COnfussed Matthew! Watch the new BSG its amazing! It has turned out to be one of my all time favourite sci-fi shows. If you like DS9 you'll love Battlestar Galactica.
In my opinion DS9 was the best star trek series ever(including TOS)and yes it very much was a star trek show, star trek is not about following some formula and it dosent hurt if every single episode dosent end in insight into our selves, we can wait a couple episodes and then get that same insight at the end of the longer story arch, (that's why they call it a "story arch" duh) atleast those of us who have memories can which you obviously do not given all your incorrect statments in reviews.
No timeless quality? Are you mad? This show was the evolution of Star Trek. Star Trek was due for a change of pace and format, because the old ones, while great, had become a dry well (clearly seen in the last seasons of TNG). The attempt to continue using the same format is what gave us Voyager, terrible, terrible Voyager. DS9 took the Star Trek ideas another step up the ladder from TNG. It was a Star Trek show in every way except format, and that's why it was so great (and why VOY wasn't).
I think their were some star trek memorable lessons..
true nature of evil & terrorist is in the eye of the beholder (stuff)
The idea that good people do bad things and visa versa. The characters history and previous actions drove their future actions.
the biggest examples being:
Dukat moving from middle management of evil (first couple season) to tireless freedom fighter, to All out evil dictator (dominion) to full on supervillain.
ooops was gonna talk about kira too but i ran out of space.
@HouserGraves More people should see Babylon 5. Bad tech in the show, but everything good about DS9 is so much better in B5. I am disgusted with what Paramount did to Straczynski
TOS and TNG had some of the msot memorable and unforgettable moments in TV history, from Kirk fighting the Gorn, Kirk and fighting Spock in "Amok Time," McCoy's two classic, often-spoofed lines "I'm a doctor, not a ___" and "He's dead, Jim," and the ground-breaking Kirk/Uhura kiss to "We are the Borg...Resistance is Futile," Picard becoming Locutus and that GREAT cliffhanger, to the movies' "KHHHAAANNN!" "Nuclear Wessels" and "The line must be drawn HERE..."
I have to disagree with some of you assessment of DS9, mainly that it wasn't “Star Trek”. It explored many of the main themes that Gene Roddenberry had in the first series, such as the exploration of the space, exploring other civilization, the nature humans and. Instead of simply having one episode visiting an alien world the DS9 series revisited many different worlds again, like Bajor and Cardassia.
@ivoryshark This gave the series more substance then the TNG. DS9 also explored human nature by having the Dominion/Cardassians as an analogy of the darker side of humanity, the drive to dominant other people, the mindless obedience towards leaders, misplace religious beliefs and genocide.
@ivoryshark Very true. The idea that we can continuously explore Bajor and Cardassia was huge. And it wasn't a one dimensional exploration, there was no great flaw in their cultures for Sisko to find. So many times, Garak also makes a case for Cardassian civilization, and though we are not naturally inclined to agree with him, the fact that an intelligent and occasionally heroic character can openly express these beliefs really adds a dimension of tolerance and understanding to the show.
DS9 NOT being set on a space-ship (not counting The Defiant) does not make it un-Star Trek. It's sort of like, showing you behind the scenes, where the other series show the frontier, the flagships.
Papa's opinion is hardly worth mentioning, let alone devoting half this video to, because you simply say "my dad was right", giving no explanation as to why that is inherently so. In fact, in part 1 you talk about how intricate the story is, so the "no substance / unmemorable" remarks contradict and come out of nowhere. It's your argument that has no substance. I mean, I could name at least 20 characters off the top of my head, for instance. That's certainly not typical of an "unmemorable" show.
i take issue with the "star trek is supposed to be this and this but not this" mentality. had ds9 just stayed inside that narrow box established by tos and tng, it would have been no different from them. the point of a spin-off is to be different, otherwise why bother? to me, star trek means a universe and set of ideals, not a storyboard.
@MrZingnigga Star Trek is a narrative form at least as much as those other things. If you set a pornographic film on the Defiant, could you call that Star Trek? A sitcom?
Star Trek didn't enter the popular consciousness because of phasers and William Shatner. It became timeless because of the stories it told and the way it told them.
Yeah, I can't agree that DS9 didn't explore humanity. In fact, I would say that DS9 did that to a greater extent than any of the Trek series'. Just look at "In the Pale Moonlight", as just one example among many. DS9 didn't rely on singular episodes to explore "humanity", i.e. Kira training Cardassians terrorist tactics to overcome their occupiers (the Dominion).
I will admit that DS9 is not as easy to just jump into from a new viewer point of view, but DS9 was a game changer in that way.
The thing is, Deep Space nine might have impressed me more if it hadn't come out at the same time as Babylon 5, which did everything that DS9 is credited with but did it better and in less time.
I'll say this, I don't rewatch DS9 episodes nearly as often as I do for any other Trek. When I do it's because I want to rewatch a particularly memorable scene, like the battle at the end of "Rocks and Shoals," and need to rewatch everythin that went with it in order to get the full impact. Even then I feel like I'm picking up at an arbitrary point: How can I rewatch "Rocks and Shoals" without rewatching "A Time to Stand" first? Then I need to rewatch "Call to Arms," et cetera.
@aperson22222 So I suppose I can see there Matthew's point about how the overstories keep most of the episodes from standing alone well. (I have rewatched "Duet" and "Far Beyond the Stars" many times, and the pilot as well. Those are surely Trek episodes as he would define them, though I'm not all that clear on what his definition is, no matter how many times I've watched this.)
However, DS9 is the only Star Trek show I've rewatched straight through, from start to finish. I can't imagine
@aperson22222 doing that for any other Trek series, nor even for any season of a Trek series. Instead I'll cherry-pick enjoyable episodes and pass over lame ones, content that there's nothing I can miss in (to choose one from each series, each of which aired during a generally good season) "The Enemy Within," "The Loss," "Sacred Ground," or "Storm Front." When watching DS9 Season 6, for instance, however, I'll gladly endure "Honor Among Thieves" for what little it does to advance the overstory.
@aperson22222 That issue of not having many standout episodes is what endears me to DS9 over the other shows. It was almost 7 straight years of serialized plots. They took the time to give us characters to care about and well thought out stories to go with them. You can't do that if you have a bunch of stand-alone episodes where the actions of one don't affect the following episodes. When I watch an episode of DS9 I can tell you what season it came from
@tbeller80 i agree its like alot of the series each episode needed to be placed in that order otherwise well it would not make a whole lot of sense lol. but also i think the seires needed each episode to be where it was because in any other way the series would not work the way it did. things needed to happen in episodes in order for other episodes to happen so other episodes could happen. take our man bashier it was a somewhat important subttle episode that led to something.
@aperson22222 not because I can remember every episode, but I can look at the story and the character and recall what they were doing at that point in the series. Except for the uniforms and the makeup, you could compare a season 7 TNG episode and a season 2 or 3 episode and not tell the difference where they were in the series because except for rare occasions nothing ever changed.
I've watched and rewatched this many times but I just don't understand it. The characters taught us a great deal. Long character arcs makes it easier to do that, not harder.
Great review, but I disagree. DS9 is my fav startrek and I took a lot from it. For me it had it had the best characters. It was the only trek series where I felt the characters truely seemed like family and the cast had great chemistry. But I've only seen TNG, DS9, and VOY
imma agree with you on this matt i was 9 when ds9 ended and i forgot it like that but still remembered tos,tng,and bits from piece of shit voyager.But i had went to the star trek experience in vegas a got an encyclopedia to star trek that id forgotten one day i found and remebered all the good things about ds9 so yeah you may forgot it but when you remember it again,it'll stay with you till the day you die
My biggest peeve with the franchise (and ST:VOY in particular) is the "religious aspect". (Keep in mind, I am a HUGE Trek fan) I did not appreciate that Christianity and Christian beliefs were construed as quaint and/or silly. But all pagan (i.e., non-Abrahamic) were believable and accepted. Biggest examples: Chakotay's Native American religion and the Vulcan beliefs. Janeway was insanely enamored with Chakotay's beliefs, but laughed off Christianity.
As much as pains me to say this, DS9 is probably the best Star Trek there is, and it continues to pain me to know, it could have been better... Although if we pit episodes vs episodes, TOS probably had the best ones, so keep that in mind...
Sorry I disagree with you & dear ole dad - it was a very memorable series for me & I keep going back to it. It got me back into ST after a 15 year break & it stands up 3 yrs after I discovered it.
Oh and the final episodes were like jekyl and hyde. One brilliant and the other was gay. Final eppisode was a copout. I think the writers must have been high when they wrote that eppisode and thought it was funny to air the biggest let down in TV history
I thought DS9 was poor compared to TNG, the original series and now Enterprise bur agree its better than voyager. The biggest problem with DS9 is all the bullshit about the prophets. I mean if they loved Bajor that much they would have clicked there fingers and destroyed the dominion in about 5 seconds saving the lives of billions. Also hated the twist where Sissko is half prophet, what the hell was that all about
and to be fair we are not living in the 1960's anymore, so Deep Space Nine lived in the 1990's, you really cannot compare the original Star Trek with anything else...
DS9 was and still is one of the best of the Star Trek series and franchise next to TOS. One complaint bI have with DS9, is that it didn't have guest appearances from the cast and crew of TNG especially during the Dominion War, I'm sure Sisko could have used Picard's assistance and support as he got from the other starfleet captains. DS9 was just as much of STAR TREK as TOS or TNG or even ENT, it did it's share of space exploration and it also tackled some issues we face today such as war .
In my opinion DS9 is the best Star Trek series. I have purchased the box set while I would never spend money on any of the others including the movies.
Not even a great movie like the wrath of khan? In my opinion TOS, TNG and DS9 were all great shows well worth watching and they were all great for different reasons.
DS9 is a dissection, a cross examination, an interrogation, a judgment of Gene Roddenberry's vision. How can you call yourself a critic when can't even grasp the basic subtext of the material you're reviewing
Exactly, and on the flip side of that coin, the Founders, as the gods of the Dominion races, turned their followers into religious zealots at best with the Vorta and suicidal, drug addicted crusaders at worst in the case of the Jem'hadar.
Wow. I was never a huge fan of DS9 when it was on (though I did like the show), and now I understand why. It didn't have the Star Trek formulaic pattern of exposition + problem + solution = lesson learned. Not that TNG always followed that pattern, but the formula made it easier to follow the show, and you felt like you were learning something along the way. You're right: DS9, except for the fact that it's set in the ST universe, isn't "Star Trek". It set its own course, and did well on it.
"It''s about exploring ourselves. It's about looking in the mirror and seeing where we've been and where we can go."
How does this not apply to DS9 again? On either a micro or macro level. This was a show that took the core Roddenberry philosophies and asked the hard questions. It took the themes that Star Trek had always been about and held them up to the mirror, so to speak.
It seems to me that TOS was exploring some aspect of the human condition in almost every episode with some sort of insight or lesson or doing episodes that were personal to the characters. The writers on DS9 did do that occasionally but they didn't do it all of the time. It seemed to me that they were trying to be controversial and I think that got in the way of having more episodes like "The Visitor." Moral questions are great but I feel trek is at it's best when it really makes us feel.
Yeah and that's great and I don't have a problem with that personally but what about people episodes like "The Visitor" "Far beyond the stars" "The inner light" and "Tapestry" for example aren't these also a major part of what star trek is about? It's just I feel Ds9 didn't do enough of these kind of episodes.
@mummra4ever DS9 didn't do ENOUGH of these kinds of episodes? Two of the four you mentioned are DS9 episodes ("The Visitor," "Far Beyond the Stars,") plus we can include introspective episodes like "Duet," and "It's Only a Paper Moon" in that list, as well as episodes that seem like mindless action fests on the surface like "The Siege of AR-558," but end up being about the characters and with real messages like the idea that war is hell. Then we have introspective bits throughout the series too.
I'm not saying that they didn't do these kind of episodes it's just I feel that most of the focus of the show was on these darker explorations of the human condition and moral questions kind of episodes. Like "In the pale moonlight", "Inquistion", "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges". In my opinion these kind of episodes overshadowed others like "The visitor" "The ascent" "The Begotten" and other's previously mentioned. People don't seem to talk about these episodes as much as they do with the former.
@Vader47000 i agree out of all the series i have watched honestly this show was the most human it had alot of episodes that showed humans are and what we could become. they explored themselves quite alot. and their were quite a few memberable episodes i mean even an extremely boring episode at the time called the quickening was still memberable as i watched it as a child and i hated episodes where all anyone did was just talk about boring stuff and nothing happens.
I agree that no show is immune to criticism. But criticism of any show should be based on THAT show. It is ok to offer an evaluative comparison of the show to its predecessors. it is not ok to JUDGE the show based on its predecessors. Every TV show and film must be judged on its own merits; no exceptions.
Also, please do not refer to DS9 as a 'spinoff.' It is not a spinoff. It is part of the same franchise as TOS and must be treated as such.
To be honest, Deep Space Nine was on the level with TOS in my opinion.
Confused Matthew mentions how there is little to nothing memorable about the characters or the story, but I find many things of DS9 memorable, such as the character of Garak, and episodes such as "Duet", "The Die is Cast", etc.
DS9 had a lot of excellent episodes that are extremely memorable. Duet is perhaps my favorite episode out of ALL of Star Trek. If not Duet, then Rocks and Shoals--though I guess that one plays into his point that only the war is memorable. Also, the character development of most of the excellent characters has stayed with me through the years. Especially Sisko--my all time favorite Trek character.
You can throw out a season without panning all its episodes. I hate TNG Season 1 most of any season but I do like "Skin of Evil." SFDebris hates VGR Season 2 but likes "The Thaw." And Matthew here, in ripping Season 7 of DS9, says "It did have some good episodes." He doesn't name them--and while he says it he has a still photo from "It's Only a Paper Moon" up. So "It's Only a Paper Moon" was a good one? Because one of his biggest complaints against the season was the overuse of Vic Fontaine.
Even though VOY and ENT werent as good I still liked a few characters, and my biggest complaint was when they gave them character development and forgot about it on the very next episode =___=;;
Phlox, Malcom and Trip were really good characters and they didnt do much with them which is sad because they were the only interesting ones on the show. Tucker and Hoshi got even less development and they couldve been great too. Archer was made of cardboard. Quantum Leap was good though...
I don't think ENT ever did anything with its characters. It was a retreat back to TOS, where the "stars" were so driving the series that other regular cast members felt like bit players. The only character who even felt enough like a real person to develop was Reed, and since he wasn't Archer, T'Pol or Tucker, he was out of luck. They never did a thing to change his character, except having him befriend Tucker in a very lame episode. Well his Section 31 thing wasn't bad, but went nowhere.
Thats funny, I cant remember a single moment that shows the human condition on ENT or VOY or remember any dialogue from them but plenty of moments came to mind on the other 3 series. Last Battlefield was excellent in TOS, Darmok was a great TNG one and Far Beyond the Stars was a great DS9 ep.
Completely disagree. I can't stand DS9 it is soooo boring. Honestly I have watched all of the episodes which "contained action." It barely lasted 5 mins and just switched to a bunch of retarded frengi. Really Babylon 5 has the more superiour arc. Fine you have a point with the influence but bablyon 5 did more better.
DS9 had plenty of very reflective moments. Duet, Ties of Blood and Water, Rocks and Shoals, and many other (surely almost as high a ratio as TOS had of episodes like Errand of Mercy and City on the Edge of Forever to nonsense like Arena and The Savage Curtain). Also characters grew in very meaningful ways: Odo's private search for belonging makes him the savior of the quadrant. Sisko's shattered life is healed. Kira goes from hatred to fighting for the people she'd always seen as the enemy.
Arena wasn't nonsense. It was an episode that asked the moral question of can you punish someone for their actions when they just thought they were defending themselves and that you yourself might have been in the wrong in the first place?
I found Garak was a very interesting character some of the time. Like Matthew, I enjoyed him at certain points and found him tiresome at others. Unlike Matthew I found that the two sets of points were intermixed, not all good for half the series and all bad for the other half. Watching his friendship with Bashir evolve was one of the many character development arcs that the series did so well, and those do indeed have staying power in the memory.
ive grown up with two trekies my mom and older brother. Ive seen it all TOS, TNG, DS9, VGR, and all the movies and out of all of these i have to say i enjoyed DS9 and the movies the most. I believe DS9 has a very lasting memory, with its clever twists and turns in the series. But it was very much a star trek series. The only thing that made a huge difference is DS9 had more character development than the others, and had a progressing story line through the entire series. AndVoyager was very good
When's the last time you saw the original? Most of it is completely forgettable or just campy, there were only 4 or 5 with the universal themes you mention. At least, any more than every other sci-fi show since around when Doctor Who started. Red Dwarf had more soul-searching and deep commentary on the human condition, and that was a comedy. DS9 had a lot more, even if a lot of it was contradictory or pro-superstition.
I like DS9 but TOS had more subtle commentary and therefore it allowed you to think more about it's message and what it could be. With something like "Far beyond the stars" it wasn't like that, it makes it clear what it's message is. And I prefer things that keep me thinking about it.
TOS, subtle? Not so much. Take for instance "A Private Little War"--one of my favorite TOS episodes! It has Kirk agonizing over the morality of using a primative society to fight a proxy war against the Klingons while McCoy (Spock was injured so the other American character had to stand in as Kirk's sidekick) discusses the wrongness of war in general. Kirk even mentions "the brush wars" of 20th century Asia. Gee, I wonder what a 1960s audience was supposed to be reminded of?
I said that I thought that it was just more subtle with whatever message they were sending out than DS9 was not that it was entirely subtle. Yes with some episodes the message is made clear enough but I don't think that's quite the case for all of the episodes. Like for example one of my favourite episodes "The squire of gothos" I think has the message that being in a position of power doesn't make you a better person but rather a sense of maturity does and not many people seem to notice that.
True, but it's not like DS9 was always hitting you over the head either. In "The Jem'Hadar" Quark turns the longstanding assumption that humans have more integrity than Ferengi on its head by comparing the two species' history-as an aside! "Children of Time" makes us think about competing definitions of selfishness, with no easy answers; but that dilemma doesn't become clear at first. "The Magnificent Ferengi" slips an indictment against stereotyping into what is widely seen as comic relief.
3:50 BULLSHIT!!!! You do not have to do that!!! The Original Series was on 40 YEARS AGO! How can you judge a 1990's TV show by 1960's standards?! This is why you really should stop reviewing Star Trek Matt.
By the way, your Star Wars Clone Wars review is excellent so far. Can't wait for part two.
I agree that it's not right to insist that all other Treks be clones of TOS. Trek critics give TOS a pass, but it's no more immune to flaws than any other Trek. If any spinoff had made episodes like Savage Curtain, Who Mourns for Adonais?, Spock's Brain, and The Naked Time, the critics would jump all over them.
However I don't want Matt to stop reviewing Trek. I enjoy his stuff once I get past his sacred cows. And he's done the best job of anyone I've seen of ripping into the Abrams film.
It isn't more mature or adult to adopt this mainstream mumbo-jumbo nonsense about Apolegeticist religion--that is precisely what made Star Trek so special. The only way the writers could make these rediculous Bajorans seem credible was to put them through genocide and subsequently rewrite the Federation into being somesort of Beaurocracy--it made it dubious to make the straight-forward star trek criticism: you people are rediculous, get with the 24th century.
The whole point of Star Trek was that humanity had evolved beyond the dark ages of its credulous and capitalistic past into an era of enlightenment wherein conflicts were either external or in dealing with the practical applications of that philosophy. DS9 appears to be original in that it turns this idea on it's head and makes it seem like some sort of arrogant dillusion: one may take the belief that ST's utopia is impossible, but ST is mythology and DS9 is pessimism.
It does matter where religion comes from because ends don't justify means. As Picard says "A Starfleet Officer's duty is to the truth, be it scientific truth, historical truth, or personal truth"--Sisko and his crew abandon this notion because the Bajoran had a rough time and the wormhole aliens can predict the future--how is it moral that these aliens select individual races or individual people for special revelation or duty--it goes against the pursuit of truth and the ethics of equality.
Interestingly enought, DS9 itself exposes the problem of the Bajorans in the mirror universe episodes--given better luck, the Bajorans become a Dominion-like Fascist state--why? Because both cultures retain their credulity. Alas, those were early season episodes and the show grew in reverse.
"It isn't more mature or adult to adopt this mainstream mumbo-jumbo nonsense about Apolegeticist religion--that is precisely what made Star Trek so special."
If you want to assume that religion is complete bunk in a Dawkins style way, then go ahead. But the vast majority of humans would disagree with you, and probably always will. Roddenberry's view on religion were his most regressive views. Why? because assuming intellectual superiority over personal beliefs is the utter height of arrogance.
It seemed like to me on the issue of religion star trek was trying to say that people should believe more in themselves and their own abilities and there is nothing wrong with that. Because why can't you do that and believe in god as well if you want?
the type of nonsense the Bajorans and the Dominion practised themselves--tolerance and support of religious idiocy. The VOY episode "Blink of an Eye" is the real answer to the DS9 dilema, we are supposed to grow out of our superstitious infancy and learn to accept the universe as it is, not what we want it to be...why do people think VOY wasn´t about everything? Nearly every episode had a perfect Trek arc and message and some great acting and episode design...oh but no wormhole or war! stupid..
People, I think like the huge story arcs, for which I absolutely credit the show. However, it failed to prove its premise over and over again, the crux of any drama. It was always exciting to know what would happen with the story arc it´s true, but it was always wrong--the characters were morally wrong in almost every case and frankly the only ones who changed did so for the worse (except Jadzia because she died YAY). It was not star trek because it never showed humanity´s growth out of
I decided to rewatch DS9 from top to bottom. Why I had to wonder was it so popular when I hated it so much. And I figured it out. DS9 was the only show to grow in reverse. It began fantastically. It set up this perfectly Trek world in which religious Dogma plagued the advancement of society and the Federation´s tolerance was at odds with its ethics. The acting was even better from all the characters. When they added Warf and began to credit that Bajoran bullshit, the show declined into suckdom.
DS9 doesn't try to be a traditional Trek show, so it shouldn't be judged by that standard. It's set in the Trek universe, and it shows you a side of that universe that you're only told about in expository dialog elsewhere. As for the criticism that it doesn't have any memorable dialog, scenes or character beats ... did you undergo a lobotomy? DS9 is at least as rich as TNG in that area, to say the very least.
One reason why DS9 may not be as memorable is because it hasn't been as heavily syndicated and hasn't been around as long as the other series (or at least, TOS and TNG). I've probably seen about ten times more TNG than DS9 episodes, but I remember the details of DS9's stories about as well. Also, the Dominion War plot might be overshadowing your other memories of the show (not an issue with the more episodic Treks). So it's not necessarily a failing of show.
Again, totally disagree. DS9 was totally memorable. It's been years since I've seen the episodes and remember the vast majority of what happened. obv not details but the major points - definitely. Voyager - forgetable - even TNG somewhat forgetable ( I know blasphemy) DS9 was the best. BTW - most Trek fans don't consider the original Trek to be the best or even the 2nd best but 3rd behind DS9 and TNG.
I'm inclined to disagree; Deep Space Nine is probably my favorite Star Trek (though my opinion can't really be valued that highly, I actually liked Enterprise). To argue that this isn't a Star Trek is to say that it'd be impossible to do another Star Trek. It's like you said in rebuttal to Robert Zemeckis's philosophy: people want to see something new, not the same thing done differently. The focus is changed from exploring space to exploring the Federation, and a lot of exploring humanity.
This review is awful, and your analogies are poor. This show was incredible. It had some stinkers for episodes and some poor characters, but its devotion to its continuity, character and writing puts it well ahead of Voyager, Enterprise and even TNG. Its smart writing and darker subject matter made it truly exceptional. And to all those who believe that Trek can't do Dark, well watch this and understand how wrong you really are.
Kate Mulgrew's acting was second in the entire franchise only to Stewart and maybe Spiner. Similar akalades for Picardo and Dawson, and that can't be ignored in your evaluations. TNG was the best because it had the best of both Worlds (haha, get it?), it had great writing on a smaller scale than DS9 and great EXECUTION to boot in spite of the Crushers and Geordi's whining about women. DS9 also deserves scorn for turning Worf into a pussy--when he screamed at Jadzia's death I was totally unmoved.
There is an episode of South Park poking fun of Canadians in an outdoor Canadian-acted final scene from Hamlet--that to me is the difference between the three 2nd gen series (I also don't consider ENT to be part of the franchise). DS9--great writing (like the Visitor ep.) but the acting is so FUCKING BAD I don't care if the story's good. That's true for EVERY episode of the show. VOY--some really bad writing, but even in "Threshold," R.D. MacNeal's acting is bars above any DS9 characer's.
I personally think that TOS,TNG and DS9 were equally as good and neither one was better than the other. They were just all good for different reasons.
Matt--you seem to focus only on the writing of material and characters in your trek reviews--these are not novels. In spite of the great things (and they are great things I grant you) that DS9 brought to the table, the only reasonably good acting from a main character came from Quark, the bartender. Now, the SUPPORTING characters, which I believe was DS9's greatest triumph, had some great moments, but what make TNG and VOY all around better is the ACTING from the leads.
I agree 100%. The acting of the leads of DS9 was never that great. The supporting characters were always ten times more interesting and better acted than the mains. However, Matt is right DS9 was great because of its story and writing.
I'm not so sure, i think the ds9 cast could act incredibly well. Quark naturally, but sisko, kira, odo too. The only one i didn't care for was bashir. he was ok when his lines had him doing his day to day stuff, but when the script demanded he do something different he was hopeless, like his OTT performance as an elderley man in the visitor, or when he had to act "evil" it was cringe worthy. As for voyager, most of them could act very well except the wooden chakotay and harry
duet. paradise. second skin. hard time. dr bashir i presume. far beyond the stars. its only a papaer moon...? This show continues to be a creative high in star treks history, and possibly the best u.s tv show in living memory. being a fan of ALL trek (why you seem to have the need to split fans into before and afters i dont know...?) i have to recognise that G.R couldnt have conceived of, or executed such a vision and the Ira behr etc pushed trek to the limits of what it always should have been.
No memorable scene? The first coming into my mind is that mindblowing episode, in which Sisko tricks the Romulans into the war, he arguing with himself, only to come to the conclusion he'd do it all again.
TOS/TNG was all about paradise, the good human race, DS9 was all about trouble in paradise.
matt makes no sense here. First there are dozens of episodes that explore not just space and but humanity, thing is unlike other shows DS9 does not do it at the expense of telling an great story.
And what kills me is he mentions this stuff and then five seconds later forgets it and says nothing happens. The truth is Matt loves TOS and he knows DS9 is better so he says DS9 "it's not real Star Trek" to make TOS always the best Star Trek.
I really don't agree with the idea that DS9 had no substance. It had an amazing major story arc, but it also had a lot of heart. While, yes, the Dominion war is the first thing that springs to mind, my favorite stuff is the little stuff. All of the characters respective arcs, the relationships, the smaller scenes that were simply about people being people, and the performances. Characters grew, and felt very very real on DS9 as did their relationships, so I'd say it had a lot of substance.
Erm... ...I think we're just different opinions here. I think that TOS was crappy, and don't remember as many moments, dialogues and lessons as from DS9. DS9 was an improvement to all of Star Trek, and I wish TOS would've been a lot more like DS9. I'd give it a ten, mind you.
Also, I feel that they ended this series too soon. The aftermath of the war could have been just as interesting as the war itself. I think one of the problems is that they created this complex series of events on such a large scale then realized. Oh we have only this many episodes in which to solve things. Thus the last season was rushed and seems silly in some places. I don't know if you read the post series books but these would have provided enough material for a 8th 9th and 10th season.
A five?!? What drugs are you taking? So by your system 50% of the shows out there are better then DS9? I have to disagree this show would be an 8/10 if not higher. DS9 should best be viewed as a distant Cousin or Uncle you only see at holidays of the Star Trek family. The reason it is rightfully using the title of Star Trek because it uses the established cultures and relationships set up in previous shows. Thus saving time and allowing for deeper character development then previous shows
The show had substance. DS9 depicted war, religion, and character drama in a way that is still relevant today. The show just never reached a mainstream audience the way TOS and TNG did. In a way, both TOS and TNG seem dated upon rewatching, but whenever I rewatch an episode of DS9 it still feels relevant as if it would still be a good show i it was on today. Giving DS9 a 5 considering all the things you liked about it seems unfair, but everyone is entitled to an opinion.
I take you're point about the story arcs being forgettable at times. Single episodes can be punchy and memorable when they have a good idea at the core. Lets face it though, DS9 was the third trek iteration, which means there were over 250 trek episodes behind it. It's no wonder they moved into serial mode. There are only so many flash-in-the-pan stories you can churn out, and there's something to be said for a bit of character development, which earlier series didn't really offer.
Matt, I love the intelligent analysis you bring to your reviews, but I have to disagree with you on the fundamental point of a franchise's original incarnation determining the path ever other version of it must follow. To use an analogy, think of Star Trek like a genre, which is fair to do because in genres, the defining characteristics are found in the iconography, setting, archetypes, and kinds of conflict. (Continued...)
Star Trek possesses all of those qualities, so let's call it a genre and compare it to the western. If you said the westerns by John Ford bear little resemblance to a Leone western, I would agree. That film experimented with the genre, taking its formula, stylistics, and moral landscape in an entirely new direction. Yet it was still a western. You may disagree because those films were separate narratives, so Leone had no obligation to strike a certain tone set previously by Ford. (Cont'd)
DS9 was a continuation of the Star Trek story, so I can understand the desire to see the 'pure' ST defined by the original remain the formula. But ST lasted only three seasons, and while it was critically acclaimed, DS9 lasted seven seasons. That doesn't discount ST's wide influence. TV is a medium that thrives on innovation and pleasing the audience. ST was a beautiful exception, but I think DS9 found a great balance between great story and today's commercial climate.
Season one memorable moments: Show starts with battle of Wolf 359. Sisko punches Q. Kai Opaka dies. An insane Sisko build the clock that sits in his office for the rest of the series. The episode Duet. Vedek Winn is introduced.
Season two memorable moments : You see the man who 'raised' Odo. Bashir and O'Brien start becoming friends. You find out that Quark once had a relationship with Cardassian woman. Kang, Kor, and Koloth. 'The Maquis' parts one and two. The episode 'The wire' which begins the groundwork for Garak's character. O'Brien tortured. Jem'Hadar introduced.
Season three memorable moments: The Defiant is introduced. Odo finds his people. Quark marries a Klingon woman. Quark finds a Jem'Hadar baby. Thomas Riker steals the Defiant. 'Past Tense' parts one and two. Vedek Bareil dies. You find out odo has feelings for Kira. The obsidian order and the Tal Shiar wage war on the founders. Odo kills a fellow changeling.
Season four memorable moments: Worf joins. Martok introduced. Dukat finds Ziyal. First lesbian kiss on any Star Trek episode, ever. Quark, Rom and nog become the Roswell aliens. Sword of Kahless is found. The founders go to Earth. Red Squad first mentioned. You find out Odo loves Kira, but is afraid to tell her. Dukat becomes a freedom fighter. Kurn's memory erased. O'Brien 20 years in prison. Eddington is Maquis. Weyoun. Quark hires Garak to kill him. Odo turned into a solid.
Season five memorable moments: Crew captures Dominion ship. Jake on front lines of war. Trials and Tribble-ations. O'Briens' baby put into Kira. Baby changeling. Eddington dies. Martok, Worf, and Bashir in Dominion prison. Ennabaran Tain dies. Bashir's genetic secret discovered. Garak tries to kll Nog. War between Dominion and the Federation begins.
I liked the soap-opera type style that DS9 portrayed. I also loved the non-utopian society it communicated to the audience. The reason I have always liked Star Trek more than Star Wars is because I found more human reality in Trek. DS9 focused on that. I always loved it for that reason.
Johnrl21 3 weeks ago
TNG was far better than the original and DS9.
dtmc666 4 weeks ago
I've decided. Your completely wrong. Ds9 was very much a star trek show precisely because it would not have made sense or had the nearly the same dramatic force were it not for the backstory of all the races, organizations and politics set up by the predecessor series. And tos and tng were at their best when they incorporated story arcs, recurring characters and political intrigue rather than just monster of the week. Viz unification Q best of both worlds space seed/wrath of khan. Plus I thi
jgabriellam 1 month ago
This is the drivel you get when a TOS/TNG fan does a review. Your dad hated it? My dad doesn't even know what Star Trek is. Geek Family Alert.
kurumako 1 month ago
To me every single star trek series has has a different purpose, shown a different side of humanity, and been meant to demonstrate a new piece of the "human condition" as it is refered to. TOS was meant to encourage exploration of the universe. TNG was meant to explore the self and how we get along. DS9 was once we are there, how do we operate there. Voyager was if we are thrust into a new environment without a safety net, how do we pull together. And Enterprise was how do we start out.
danceoutnow 1 month ago
I like Seinfeld and the news... problem officer?
x0xDarthWyylokx0x 2 months ago
He sure has stirred up the hornets nest on this one, hehe.
Usul573 6 months ago
(Cont.) Do you define a soap opera as a show that has characters that are good, by the way? The characters are well defined and contrary to some, the acting is SUPERB. Just from the main cast there is Brooks, Auberjonois, Dorn, Visitor, Meaney, Shimerman and Siddig. Then there are the recurring characters, like Alaimo, Robinson, Eisenberg and Combs. Certainly better than Shatner, Koenig, Takei, Sirtis, MacFadden, Wheaton or Burton, with only Nimoy, Stewart and Spiner to REALLY back them up.
0its0green0 6 months ago
DS9 is Trek. It just discusses humanity in a way that TOS or TNG did not. In the originals it would be thing hapens -> technobabble to fix -> MORAL In DS9 they viewed humanity in such a richer and deeper context. Instead of having big, bad enemies like nameless Klingons or the Borg, they humanized villains. Dukat was turned mass murderer to good guy and then went mad when his daughter was murdered. The Founders were turned into what they were because of the hatred and distrust of solids. (Cont.)
0its0green0 6 months ago 6
@0its0green0 you are right i rember just watching the female changeling making a subtle comment that she felt that it was her duity to make every soild a slave to them because they can change shape and solids can not so changelings know better then solids and must obey them for their own good and if they do not they must die for their own good. and i honestly think thats why jemhadar do not seem to fear death. because if they have to die it is for their own good.
thewewguy8t88 5 months ago
I concur with VAder47000; DS9 was the first of the franchise to apply Roddenberry's utopian Federation to a real universe with real problems. It was also the first to give a serious analysis to non Federation cultures that didn't descend into condescending parody..ie the Ferengi. Quark is a complex character, and at times, he can actually question Federation values legitimately and convincingly. This is the kind of open mindedness that the franchise desperately needed.
erentheca 7 months ago
I have to say I disagree. The fact that Deep Space Nine was so different from the previous shows really helped it to stand out, while it also kept the same basic qualities. You named a lot of them yourself, and I fail to see how Deep Space Nine doesn't show them.
Also, I'm very glad that you mentioned "The Visitor" by name. That was one of my favorite episodes and it doesn't quite get the credit it deserves.
44jeanette44 9 months ago
You completely missed the point.. SEVERAL times in this review Matthew.
MasterFhyl 10 months ago
But by "larger and smaller" I mean that with only limited space to explore, it meant that the writers had to find more possibilities within a more confined space.
aerozppln 10 months ago
DS9 made ST both larger and smaller at the same time. The source of your criticisms, I believe come from the show's decision to have a spacestation, rather than a starship. Stationary. We weren't jumping from one place to another, so we saw the consequences of actions (though, there were some bad episodes and bad writing, though not VOY bad) from previous episodes. Which wi erode Star Trek's idealististic tendencies. It was a way of bringing the skies of Star Trek down to ground level.
aerozppln 10 months ago
You mention a lack of substance and memorability by using yourself as an example, but again, I couldn't disagree more. I already pointed out the substance in my comments for the first part. As for being memorable? I remember the vast majority of it, including when it first started and wasn't nearly as interesting because it was too busy trying to suck up to the TNG crowd. It had good episodes, great episodes, bad episodes, and horrible episodes, and I remember most of them.
captainexcabier 11 months ago
So if I were to use myself as the standard the way you do, then DS9 had a lot of substance and was a very memorable show, and TOS wasn't especially memorable because I don't remember a lot about it. To be fair, though, I haven't seen the majority of the series. The thing is, with what I did see, most of what I remember about it is rolling my eyes at the corniness that tended to go hand in hand with the series. So TOS isn't exactly timeless, either, at least in my book.
captainexcabier 11 months ago
@captainexcabier Blasphemy. The unique thing about shows like TOS and The Twilight Zone, is that the stories and points put across were so damned riveting most of the time that you forgot the fucking corniness. And in those days, they had ACTORS. REAL ONES. That's why I thought Voyager was good, cause the acting was above average even though the writing was shit.
TheEntryCode 9 months ago
@TheEntryCode Wrong on both counts as far as I'm concerned. Robert Picardo was probably the best thing about VOY, but no amount of acting could overcome the lack of substance. And with TOS, often the acting was part of the corniness.
captainexcabier 9 months ago
@captainexcabier Acting may not have been good enough for some to overcome bad writing, but it was for me mostly. And all the series I've seen (except DS9) have had a level of corniness. I see nothing corny about the actors at all for TOS, just the writing and the attitude at the time towards entertainment. And these are opinions, therefore I cannot be "wrong."
TheEntryCode 9 months ago
@captainexcabier Yeah, I have to agree with you there. I found much of DS9's episodes to be extremely memorable, and repeatedly enjoyable. I think it also explored issues much deeper than TOS was able to do, and that is not to discredit TOS at all, but DS9 was able to stand on what TOS accomplished and go to the next level. It had its bad moments too, like "Move Along Home", but so did TOS... "Turnabout Intruder" comes to mind.
erentheca 7 months ago
I kind of understand what you mean about DS9 not being "Trek", or at least not traditional Trek. That's probably why I and my parents lost interest in DS9 when it began making major deviations from the ol' formula. But years later, I can appreciate what DS9 was and that it was still Trek, just very different. Of course, that difference was greatly influenced by Babylon 5 (which was a far superior show).
datalal624 1 year ago
COnfussed Matthew! Watch the new BSG its amazing! It has turned out to be one of my all time favourite sci-fi shows. If you like DS9 you'll love Battlestar Galactica.
martinf74 1 year ago
In my opinion DS9 was the best star trek series ever(including TOS)and yes it very much was a star trek show, star trek is not about following some formula and it dosent hurt if every single episode dosent end in insight into our selves, we can wait a couple episodes and then get that same insight at the end of the longer story arch, (that's why they call it a "story arch" duh) atleast those of us who have memories can which you obviously do not given all your incorrect statments in reviews.
himedsq 1 year ago 3
No timeless quality? Are you mad? This show was the evolution of Star Trek. Star Trek was due for a change of pace and format, because the old ones, while great, had become a dry well (clearly seen in the last seasons of TNG). The attempt to continue using the same format is what gave us Voyager, terrible, terrible Voyager. DS9 took the Star Trek ideas another step up the ladder from TNG. It was a Star Trek show in every way except format, and that's why it was so great (and why VOY wasn't).
headrockbeats 1 year ago 4
I think their were some star trek memorable lessons..
true nature of evil & terrorist is in the eye of the beholder (stuff)
The idea that good people do bad things and visa versa. The characters history and previous actions drove their future actions.
the biggest examples being:
Dukat moving from middle management of evil (first couple season) to tireless freedom fighter, to All out evil dictator (dominion) to full on supervillain.
ooops was gonna talk about kira too but i ran out of space.
ljohn2525 1 year ago
Awful review.
emeeme2003 1 year ago
I suppose you can say Babylon 5 did the same thing...but wasn't bogged down by the Star Trek name.
StuffedAnimalAdvisor 1 year ago
@HouserGraves More people should see Babylon 5. Bad tech in the show, but everything good about DS9 is so much better in B5. I am disgusted with what Paramount did to Straczynski
gunsmithbasic 1 year ago
TOS and TNG had some of the msot memorable and unforgettable moments in TV history, from Kirk fighting the Gorn, Kirk and fighting Spock in "Amok Time," McCoy's two classic, often-spoofed lines "I'm a doctor, not a ___" and "He's dead, Jim," and the ground-breaking Kirk/Uhura kiss to "We are the Borg...Resistance is Futile," Picard becoming Locutus and that GREAT cliffhanger, to the movies' "KHHHAAANNN!" "Nuclear Wessels" and "The line must be drawn HERE..."
DS9 was good...
VOY+ENT=Empty.
obiwanobiwan13 1 year ago
You forgot about Kai Winn, she would have bested any politician.
gemdiver 1 year ago
Excellent points. In the Pale Moonlight is the one episode I recall the lines.
Ardenwolfe 1 year ago
I have to disagree with some of you assessment of DS9, mainly that it wasn't “Star Trek”. It explored many of the main themes that Gene Roddenberry had in the first series, such as the exploration of the space, exploring other civilization, the nature humans and. Instead of simply having one episode visiting an alien world the DS9 series revisited many different worlds again, like Bajor and Cardassia.
ivoryshark 1 year ago
@ivoryshark This gave the series more substance then the TNG. DS9 also explored human nature by having the Dominion/Cardassians as an analogy of the darker side of humanity, the drive to dominant other people, the mindless obedience towards leaders, misplace religious beliefs and genocide.
ivoryshark 1 year ago
@ivoryshark Very true. The idea that we can continuously explore Bajor and Cardassia was huge. And it wasn't a one dimensional exploration, there was no great flaw in their cultures for Sisko to find. So many times, Garak also makes a case for Cardassian civilization, and though we are not naturally inclined to agree with him, the fact that an intelligent and occasionally heroic character can openly express these beliefs really adds a dimension of tolerance and understanding to the show.
erentheca 7 months ago
DS9 NOT being set on a space-ship (not counting The Defiant) does not make it un-Star Trek. It's sort of like, showing you behind the scenes, where the other series show the frontier, the flagships.
Septimz 1 year ago
Papa's opinion is hardly worth mentioning, let alone devoting half this video to, because you simply say "my dad was right", giving no explanation as to why that is inherently so. In fact, in part 1 you talk about how intricate the story is, so the "no substance / unmemorable" remarks contradict and come out of nowhere. It's your argument that has no substance. I mean, I could name at least 20 characters off the top of my head, for instance. That's certainly not typical of an "unmemorable" show.
TazG2000 1 year ago 5
I like Confused Matthew's father! He looks awesome!
MeatballsMarlowe 1 year ago
i take issue with the "star trek is supposed to be this and this but not this" mentality. had ds9 just stayed inside that narrow box established by tos and tng, it would have been no different from them. the point of a spin-off is to be different, otherwise why bother? to me, star trek means a universe and set of ideals, not a storyboard.
MrZingnigga 1 year ago 33
@MrZingnigga Star Trek is a narrative form at least as much as those other things. If you set a pornographic film on the Defiant, could you call that Star Trek? A sitcom?
Star Trek didn't enter the popular consciousness because of phasers and William Shatner. It became timeless because of the stories it told and the way it told them.
tardisbuff 6 months ago
Sorry have to disagree with you on Voyager as I enjoyed it. However, you are right about DS9 it was great, except for the first season.
martinf74 1 year ago
Yeah, I can't agree that DS9 didn't explore humanity. In fact, I would say that DS9 did that to a greater extent than any of the Trek series'. Just look at "In the Pale Moonlight", as just one example among many. DS9 didn't rely on singular episodes to explore "humanity", i.e. Kira training Cardassians terrorist tactics to overcome their occupiers (the Dominion).
I will admit that DS9 is not as easy to just jump into from a new viewer point of view, but DS9 was a game changer in that way.
avenuePad 1 year ago
The thing is, Deep Space nine might have impressed me more if it hadn't come out at the same time as Babylon 5, which did everything that DS9 is credited with but did it better and in less time.
Hippykiller1000 1 year ago
I'll say this, I don't rewatch DS9 episodes nearly as often as I do for any other Trek. When I do it's because I want to rewatch a particularly memorable scene, like the battle at the end of "Rocks and Shoals," and need to rewatch everythin that went with it in order to get the full impact. Even then I feel like I'm picking up at an arbitrary point: How can I rewatch "Rocks and Shoals" without rewatching "A Time to Stand" first? Then I need to rewatch "Call to Arms," et cetera.
aperson22222 1 year ago
@aperson22222 So I suppose I can see there Matthew's point about how the overstories keep most of the episodes from standing alone well. (I have rewatched "Duet" and "Far Beyond the Stars" many times, and the pilot as well. Those are surely Trek episodes as he would define them, though I'm not all that clear on what his definition is, no matter how many times I've watched this.)
However, DS9 is the only Star Trek show I've rewatched straight through, from start to finish. I can't imagine
aperson22222 1 year ago
@aperson22222 doing that for any other Trek series, nor even for any season of a Trek series. Instead I'll cherry-pick enjoyable episodes and pass over lame ones, content that there's nothing I can miss in (to choose one from each series, each of which aired during a generally good season) "The Enemy Within," "The Loss," "Sacred Ground," or "Storm Front." When watching DS9 Season 6, for instance, however, I'll gladly endure "Honor Among Thieves" for what little it does to advance the overstory.
aperson22222 1 year ago
@aperson22222 That issue of not having many standout episodes is what endears me to DS9 over the other shows. It was almost 7 straight years of serialized plots. They took the time to give us characters to care about and well thought out stories to go with them. You can't do that if you have a bunch of stand-alone episodes where the actions of one don't affect the following episodes. When I watch an episode of DS9 I can tell you what season it came from
tbeller80 8 months ago
@tbeller80 i agree its like alot of the series each episode needed to be placed in that order otherwise well it would not make a whole lot of sense lol. but also i think the seires needed each episode to be where it was because in any other way the series would not work the way it did. things needed to happen in episodes in order for other episodes to happen so other episodes could happen. take our man bashier it was a somewhat important subttle episode that led to something.
thewewguy8t88 5 months ago
@aperson22222 not because I can remember every episode, but I can look at the story and the character and recall what they were doing at that point in the series. Except for the uniforms and the makeup, you could compare a season 7 TNG episode and a season 2 or 3 episode and not tell the difference where they were in the series because except for rare occasions nothing ever changed.
tbeller80 8 months ago
I've watched and rewatched this many times but I just don't understand it. The characters taught us a great deal. Long character arcs makes it easier to do that, not harder.
aperson22222 1 year ago
Battlestar Galactica is outstanding. If you havent' seen it (maybe you have by now) get down to your DVD store, or onto TV Shack and watch it.
nuclearbugman 1 year ago
Great review, but I disagree. DS9 is my fav startrek and I took a lot from it. For me it had it had the best characters. It was the only trek series where I felt the characters truely seemed like family and the cast had great chemistry. But I've only seen TNG, DS9, and VOY
jamient 1 year ago
imma agree with you on this matt i was 9 when ds9 ended and i forgot it like that but still remembered tos,tng,and bits from piece of shit voyager.But i had went to the star trek experience in vegas a got an encyclopedia to star trek that id forgotten one day i found and remebered all the good things about ds9 so yeah you may forgot it but when you remember it again,it'll stay with you till the day you die
gsnake007 1 year ago
My biggest peeve with the franchise (and ST:VOY in particular) is the "religious aspect". (Keep in mind, I am a HUGE Trek fan) I did not appreciate that Christianity and Christian beliefs were construed as quaint and/or silly. But all pagan (i.e., non-Abrahamic) were believable and accepted. Biggest examples: Chakotay's Native American religion and the Vulcan beliefs. Janeway was insanely enamored with Chakotay's beliefs, but laughed off Christianity.
sallicio 1 year ago
As much as pains me to say this, DS9 is probably the best Star Trek there is, and it continues to pain me to know, it could have been better... Although if we pit episodes vs episodes, TOS probably had the best ones, so keep that in mind...
SpanishBroomaker 1 year ago
Sorry I disagree with you & dear ole dad - it was a very memorable series for me & I keep going back to it. It got me back into ST after a 15 year break & it stands up 3 yrs after I discovered it.
amaxamon 1 year ago
Great review.
mrboosterbooster 1 year ago
The visitor was no where as good as inner light on tng witch was one of my favorite star trek episodes
prestruction 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheShanediesel 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheShanediesel 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheShanediesel 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheShanediesel 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Oh and the final episodes were like jekyl and hyde. One brilliant and the other was gay. Final eppisode was a copout. I think the writers must have been high when they wrote that eppisode and thought it was funny to air the biggest let down in TV history
TheShanediesel 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheShanediesel 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheShanediesel 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheShanediesel 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheShanediesel 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheShanediesel 1 year ago
I thought DS9 was poor compared to TNG, the original series and now Enterprise bur agree its better than voyager. The biggest problem with DS9 is all the bullshit about the prophets. I mean if they loved Bajor that much they would have clicked there fingers and destroyed the dominion in about 5 seconds saving the lives of billions. Also hated the twist where Sissko is half prophet, what the hell was that all about
TheShanediesel 1 year ago
and to be fair we are not living in the 1960's anymore, so Deep Space Nine lived in the 1990's, you really cannot compare the original Star Trek with anything else...
sednageek 1 year ago
season one - "Progress" was hard hitting and well worth another viewing
sednageek 1 year ago
I think you have no clue what DS9 was about!
Kraucik83 1 year ago
DS9 was and still is one of the best of the Star Trek series and franchise next to TOS. One complaint bI have with DS9, is that it didn't have guest appearances from the cast and crew of TNG especially during the Dominion War, I'm sure Sisko could have used Picard's assistance and support as he got from the other starfleet captains. DS9 was just as much of STAR TREK as TOS or TNG or even ENT, it did it's share of space exploration and it also tackled some issues we face today such as war .
rupert108 1 year ago
In my opinion DS9 is the best Star Trek series. I have purchased the box set while I would never spend money on any of the others including the movies.
lastin2000 1 year ago 4
Not even a great movie like the wrath of khan? In my opinion TOS, TNG and DS9 were all great shows well worth watching and they were all great for different reasons.
mummra4ever 1 year ago
DS9 is a dissection, a cross examination, an interrogation, a judgment of Gene Roddenberry's vision. How can you call yourself a critic when can't even grasp the basic subtext of the material you're reviewing
Ironzealot7531 1 year ago 5
FUCK YOUUUUUUUUU
DS9 is absolutely Star Trek. You're never able to penetrate the surface with these reviews
Ironzealot7531 1 year ago
Exactly, and on the flip side of that coin, the Founders, as the gods of the Dominion races, turned their followers into religious zealots at best with the Vorta and suicidal, drug addicted crusaders at worst in the case of the Jem'hadar.
Xondar11223344 1 year ago 2
Deep Space 9 would be a lot more relevant today then in the 90's.
Degobunny 2 years ago 4
Wow. I was never a huge fan of DS9 when it was on (though I did like the show), and now I understand why. It didn't have the Star Trek formulaic pattern of exposition + problem + solution = lesson learned. Not that TNG always followed that pattern, but the formula made it easier to follow the show, and you felt like you were learning something along the way. You're right: DS9, except for the fact that it's set in the ST universe, isn't "Star Trek". It set its own course, and did well on it.
datalal624 2 years ago
"It''s about exploring ourselves. It's about looking in the mirror and seeing where we've been and where we can go."
How does this not apply to DS9 again? On either a micro or macro level. This was a show that took the core Roddenberry philosophies and asked the hard questions. It took the themes that Star Trek had always been about and held them up to the mirror, so to speak.
Vader47000 2 years ago 42
It seems to me that TOS was exploring some aspect of the human condition in almost every episode with some sort of insight or lesson or doing episodes that were personal to the characters. The writers on DS9 did do that occasionally but they didn't do it all of the time. It seemed to me that they were trying to be controversial and I think that got in the way of having more episodes like "The Visitor." Moral questions are great but I feel trek is at it's best when it really makes us feel.
mummra4ever 2 years ago
Agreed, and often doing that on a more grander scale and with more courage than the other Star Trek shows.
I feel like Confused Matthew missed the point and the message of DS9.
Xondar11223344 1 year ago 3
Yeah and that's great and I don't have a problem with that personally but what about people episodes like "The Visitor" "Far beyond the stars" "The inner light" and "Tapestry" for example aren't these also a major part of what star trek is about? It's just I feel Ds9 didn't do enough of these kind of episodes.
mummra4ever 1 year ago
@mummra4ever DS9 didn't do ENOUGH of these kinds of episodes? Two of the four you mentioned are DS9 episodes ("The Visitor," "Far Beyond the Stars,") plus we can include introspective episodes like "Duet," and "It's Only a Paper Moon" in that list, as well as episodes that seem like mindless action fests on the surface like "The Siege of AR-558," but end up being about the characters and with real messages like the idea that war is hell. Then we have introspective bits throughout the series too.
Xondar11223344 1 year ago
I'm not saying that they didn't do these kind of episodes it's just I feel that most of the focus of the show was on these darker explorations of the human condition and moral questions kind of episodes. Like "In the pale moonlight", "Inquistion", "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges". In my opinion these kind of episodes overshadowed others like "The visitor" "The ascent" "The Begotten" and other's previously mentioned. People don't seem to talk about these episodes as much as they do with the former.
mummra4ever 1 year ago
@Vader47000 i agree out of all the series i have watched honestly this show was the most human it had alot of episodes that showed humans are and what we could become. they explored themselves quite alot. and their were quite a few memberable episodes i mean even an extremely boring episode at the time called the quickening was still memberable as i watched it as a child and i hated episodes where all anyone did was just talk about boring stuff and nothing happens.
thewewguy8t88 5 months ago
I agree with almost everything ConfusedMatthew said.
I have to say, I NEVER ever forgot about "In the Pale Moonlight" and "Section 31" episodes.
Though that's only 4 episodes, heh.
Archedgar 2 years ago
Then you must have missed "The Visitor," "Duet," "Far Beyond the Stars," "The Way of the Warrior" among others.
Xondar11223344 1 year ago
I agree that no show is immune to criticism. But criticism of any show should be based on THAT show. It is ok to offer an evaluative comparison of the show to its predecessors. it is not ok to JUDGE the show based on its predecessors. Every TV show and film must be judged on its own merits; no exceptions.
Also, please do not refer to DS9 as a 'spinoff.' It is not a spinoff. It is part of the same franchise as TOS and must be treated as such.
Otaku155 2 years ago 2
To be honest, Deep Space Nine was on the level with TOS in my opinion.
Confused Matthew mentions how there is little to nothing memorable about the characters or the story, but I find many things of DS9 memorable, such as the character of Garak, and episodes such as "Duet", "The Die is Cast", etc.
JimmySteller 2 years ago 4
DS9 had a lot of excellent episodes that are extremely memorable. Duet is perhaps my favorite episode out of ALL of Star Trek. If not Duet, then Rocks and Shoals--though I guess that one plays into his point that only the war is memorable. Also, the character development of most of the excellent characters has stayed with me through the years. Especially Sisko--my all time favorite Trek character.
aperson22222 2 years ago
Duet is also my favourite episode of Star Trek ever. But Confused Matthew threw out the first season, so I guess it kinda doesn't count for him??
Xondar11223344 1 year ago
You can throw out a season without panning all its episodes. I hate TNG Season 1 most of any season but I do like "Skin of Evil." SFDebris hates VGR Season 2 but likes "The Thaw." And Matthew here, in ripping Season 7 of DS9, says "It did have some good episodes." He doesn't name them--and while he says it he has a still photo from "It's Only a Paper Moon" up. So "It's Only a Paper Moon" was a good one? Because one of his biggest complaints against the season was the overuse of Vic Fontaine.
aperson22222 1 year ago
Even though VOY and ENT werent as good I still liked a few characters, and my biggest complaint was when they gave them character development and forgot about it on the very next episode =___=;;
Phlox, Malcom and Trip were really good characters and they didnt do much with them which is sad because they were the only interesting ones on the show. Tucker and Hoshi got even less development and they couldve been great too. Archer was made of cardboard. Quantum Leap was good though...
Holodiction 2 years ago
I don't think ENT ever did anything with its characters. It was a retreat back to TOS, where the "stars" were so driving the series that other regular cast members felt like bit players. The only character who even felt enough like a real person to develop was Reed, and since he wasn't Archer, T'Pol or Tucker, he was out of luck. They never did a thing to change his character, except having him befriend Tucker in a very lame episode. Well his Section 31 thing wasn't bad, but went nowhere.
aperson22222 2 years ago
Thats funny, I cant remember a single moment that shows the human condition on ENT or VOY or remember any dialogue from them but plenty of moments came to mind on the other 3 series. Last Battlefield was excellent in TOS, Darmok was a great TNG one and Far Beyond the Stars was a great DS9 ep.
Holodiction 2 years ago
Completely disagree. I can't stand DS9 it is soooo boring. Honestly I have watched all of the episodes which "contained action." It barely lasted 5 mins and just switched to a bunch of retarded frengi. Really Babylon 5 has the more superiour arc. Fine you have a point with the influence but bablyon 5 did more better.
Heretic920 2 years ago
Six words: "because I can live with it."
ensrifraff 2 years ago
DS9 had plenty of very reflective moments. Duet, Ties of Blood and Water, Rocks and Shoals, and many other (surely almost as high a ratio as TOS had of episodes like Errand of Mercy and City on the Edge of Forever to nonsense like Arena and The Savage Curtain). Also characters grew in very meaningful ways: Odo's private search for belonging makes him the savior of the quadrant. Sisko's shattered life is healed. Kira goes from hatred to fighting for the people she'd always seen as the enemy.
aperson22222 2 years ago 4
Arena wasn't nonsense. It was an episode that asked the moral question of can you punish someone for their actions when they just thought they were defending themselves and that you yourself might have been in the wrong in the first place?
mummra4ever 2 years ago
Oh, you're right, I didn't mean Arena. I had the wrong episode there. I was thinking of a different episode.
aperson22222 2 years ago
Garak was a big highlight of this series. I'd love to see him make a big part in a Star Trek movie.
JimmySteller 2 years ago
I found Garak was a very interesting character some of the time. Like Matthew, I enjoyed him at certain points and found him tiresome at others. Unlike Matthew I found that the two sets of points were intermixed, not all good for half the series and all bad for the other half. Watching his friendship with Bashir evolve was one of the many character development arcs that the series did so well, and those do indeed have staying power in the memory.
aperson22222 2 years ago
ive grown up with two trekies my mom and older brother. Ive seen it all TOS, TNG, DS9, VGR, and all the movies and out of all of these i have to say i enjoyed DS9 and the movies the most. I believe DS9 has a very lasting memory, with its clever twists and turns in the series. But it was very much a star trek series. The only thing that made a huge difference is DS9 had more character development than the others, and had a progressing story line through the entire series. AndVoyager was very good
jock182146 2 years ago
When's the last time you saw the original? Most of it is completely forgettable or just campy, there were only 4 or 5 with the universal themes you mention. At least, any more than every other sci-fi show since around when Doctor Who started. Red Dwarf had more soul-searching and deep commentary on the human condition, and that was a comedy. DS9 had a lot more, even if a lot of it was contradictory or pro-superstition.
ImpudentInfidel 2 years ago
I like DS9 but TOS had more subtle commentary and therefore it allowed you to think more about it's message and what it could be. With something like "Far beyond the stars" it wasn't like that, it makes it clear what it's message is. And I prefer things that keep me thinking about it.
mummra4ever 2 years ago
TOS, subtle? Not so much. Take for instance "A Private Little War"--one of my favorite TOS episodes! It has Kirk agonizing over the morality of using a primative society to fight a proxy war against the Klingons while McCoy (Spock was injured so the other American character had to stand in as Kirk's sidekick) discusses the wrongness of war in general. Kirk even mentions "the brush wars" of 20th century Asia. Gee, I wonder what a 1960s audience was supposed to be reminded of?
aperson22222 2 years ago
I said that I thought that it was just more subtle with whatever message they were sending out than DS9 was not that it was entirely subtle. Yes with some episodes the message is made clear enough but I don't think that's quite the case for all of the episodes. Like for example one of my favourite episodes "The squire of gothos" I think has the message that being in a position of power doesn't make you a better person but rather a sense of maturity does and not many people seem to notice that.
mummra4ever 2 years ago
True, but it's not like DS9 was always hitting you over the head either. In "The Jem'Hadar" Quark turns the longstanding assumption that humans have more integrity than Ferengi on its head by comparing the two species' history-as an aside! "Children of Time" makes us think about competing definitions of selfishness, with no easy answers; but that dilemma doesn't become clear at first. "The Magnificent Ferengi" slips an indictment against stereotyping into what is widely seen as comic relief.
aperson22222 2 years ago
3:50 BULLSHIT!!!! You do not have to do that!!! The Original Series was on 40 YEARS AGO! How can you judge a 1990's TV show by 1960's standards?! This is why you really should stop reviewing Star Trek Matt.
By the way, your Star Wars Clone Wars review is excellent so far. Can't wait for part two.
Otaku155 2 years ago
I agree that it's not right to insist that all other Treks be clones of TOS. Trek critics give TOS a pass, but it's no more immune to flaws than any other Trek. If any spinoff had made episodes like Savage Curtain, Who Mourns for Adonais?, Spock's Brain, and The Naked Time, the critics would jump all over them.
However I don't want Matt to stop reviewing Trek. I enjoy his stuff once I get past his sacred cows. And he's done the best job of anyone I've seen of ripping into the Abrams film.
aperson22222 2 years ago
Too much of DS9 was very tired and went through the motions.
marky2112 2 years ago
It isn't more mature or adult to adopt this mainstream mumbo-jumbo nonsense about Apolegeticist religion--that is precisely what made Star Trek so special. The only way the writers could make these rediculous Bajorans seem credible was to put them through genocide and subsequently rewrite the Federation into being somesort of Beaurocracy--it made it dubious to make the straight-forward star trek criticism: you people are rediculous, get with the 24th century.
godofmusic17 2 years ago
The whole point of Star Trek was that humanity had evolved beyond the dark ages of its credulous and capitalistic past into an era of enlightenment wherein conflicts were either external or in dealing with the practical applications of that philosophy. DS9 appears to be original in that it turns this idea on it's head and makes it seem like some sort of arrogant dillusion: one may take the belief that ST's utopia is impossible, but ST is mythology and DS9 is pessimism.
godofmusic17 2 years ago
It does matter where religion comes from because ends don't justify means. As Picard says "A Starfleet Officer's duty is to the truth, be it scientific truth, historical truth, or personal truth"--Sisko and his crew abandon this notion because the Bajoran had a rough time and the wormhole aliens can predict the future--how is it moral that these aliens select individual races or individual people for special revelation or duty--it goes against the pursuit of truth and the ethics of equality.
godofmusic17 2 years ago
Interestingly enought, DS9 itself exposes the problem of the Bajorans in the mirror universe episodes--given better luck, the Bajorans become a Dominion-like Fascist state--why? Because both cultures retain their credulity. Alas, those were early season episodes and the show grew in reverse.
godofmusic17 2 years ago
"It isn't more mature or adult to adopt this mainstream mumbo-jumbo nonsense about Apolegeticist religion--that is precisely what made Star Trek so special."
If you want to assume that religion is complete bunk in a Dawkins style way, then go ahead. But the vast majority of humans would disagree with you, and probably always will. Roddenberry's view on religion were his most regressive views. Why? because assuming intellectual superiority over personal beliefs is the utter height of arrogance.
Xondar11223344 1 year ago
It seemed like to me on the issue of religion star trek was trying to say that people should believe more in themselves and their own abilities and there is nothing wrong with that. Because why can't you do that and believe in god as well if you want?
mummra4ever 1 year ago
You can't remember Sisko's many speeches about humanity?
Traininghopper 2 years ago
the type of nonsense the Bajorans and the Dominion practised themselves--tolerance and support of religious idiocy. The VOY episode "Blink of an Eye" is the real answer to the DS9 dilema, we are supposed to grow out of our superstitious infancy and learn to accept the universe as it is, not what we want it to be...why do people think VOY wasn´t about everything? Nearly every episode had a perfect Trek arc and message and some great acting and episode design...oh but no wormhole or war! stupid..
godofmusic17 2 years ago
People, I think like the huge story arcs, for which I absolutely credit the show. However, it failed to prove its premise over and over again, the crux of any drama. It was always exciting to know what would happen with the story arc it´s true, but it was always wrong--the characters were morally wrong in almost every case and frankly the only ones who changed did so for the worse (except Jadzia because she died YAY). It was not star trek because it never showed humanity´s growth out of
godofmusic17 2 years ago
I decided to rewatch DS9 from top to bottom. Why I had to wonder was it so popular when I hated it so much. And I figured it out. DS9 was the only show to grow in reverse. It began fantastically. It set up this perfectly Trek world in which religious Dogma plagued the advancement of society and the Federation´s tolerance was at odds with its ethics. The acting was even better from all the characters. When they added Warf and began to credit that Bajoran bullshit, the show declined into suckdom.
godofmusic17 2 years ago
DS9 doesn't try to be a traditional Trek show, so it shouldn't be judged by that standard. It's set in the Trek universe, and it shows you a side of that universe that you're only told about in expository dialog elsewhere. As for the criticism that it doesn't have any memorable dialog, scenes or character beats ... did you undergo a lobotomy? DS9 is at least as rich as TNG in that area, to say the very least.
Quinstol 2 years ago
One reason why DS9 may not be as memorable is because it hasn't been as heavily syndicated and hasn't been around as long as the other series (or at least, TOS and TNG). I've probably seen about ten times more TNG than DS9 episodes, but I remember the details of DS9's stories about as well. Also, the Dominion War plot might be overshadowing your other memories of the show (not an issue with the more episodic Treks). So it's not necessarily a failing of show.
Quinstol 2 years ago
Unmemorable? Sounds like a personable problem! Go outside.
meiray 2 years ago
best review ever.
Kasbeke 2 years ago
Comment removed
whitemanstand72 2 years ago
You're a moron.
BigOrang10 2 years ago
yeah, you're a moron :)
Maryanchyk 2 years ago
DS9 - 10
TNG - 9
Original - 6
Voyager - 2
Enterprise - 0
cpmiz 2 years ago 2
from best to worse (from top to bottom):
DS9 season 3 - 7
TNG
Enterprise season 3 -4
Original
DS9 Season 1 -2
Voyager
Enterprise season 1 - 2
BorgHub 2 years ago
first season of TNG kinda sucked
Maryanchyk 2 years ago
Animated Series - 4
Maryanchyk 2 years ago
Again, totally disagree. DS9 was totally memorable. It's been years since I've seen the episodes and remember the vast majority of what happened. obv not details but the major points - definitely. Voyager - forgetable - even TNG somewhat forgetable ( I know blasphemy) DS9 was the best. BTW - most Trek fans don't consider the original Trek to be the best or even the 2nd best but 3rd behind DS9 and TNG.
cpmiz 2 years ago
Some people say DS9 is really good, but I heard some people didn't like it too much
Usul573 2 years ago
I'm inclined to disagree; Deep Space Nine is probably my favorite Star Trek (though my opinion can't really be valued that highly, I actually liked Enterprise). To argue that this isn't a Star Trek is to say that it'd be impossible to do another Star Trek. It's like you said in rebuttal to Robert Zemeckis's philosophy: people want to see something new, not the same thing done differently. The focus is changed from exploring space to exploring the Federation, and a lot of exploring humanity.
EdenAckart 2 years ago 11
This review is awful, and your analogies are poor. This show was incredible. It had some stinkers for episodes and some poor characters, but its devotion to its continuity, character and writing puts it well ahead of Voyager, Enterprise and even TNG. Its smart writing and darker subject matter made it truly exceptional. And to all those who believe that Trek can't do Dark, well watch this and understand how wrong you really are.
BadlanAlun 2 years ago 5
Kate Mulgrew's acting was second in the entire franchise only to Stewart and maybe Spiner. Similar akalades for Picardo and Dawson, and that can't be ignored in your evaluations. TNG was the best because it had the best of both Worlds (haha, get it?), it had great writing on a smaller scale than DS9 and great EXECUTION to boot in spite of the Crushers and Geordi's whining about women. DS9 also deserves scorn for turning Worf into a pussy--when he screamed at Jadzia's death I was totally unmoved.
godofmusic17 2 years ago
There is an episode of South Park poking fun of Canadians in an outdoor Canadian-acted final scene from Hamlet--that to me is the difference between the three 2nd gen series (I also don't consider ENT to be part of the franchise). DS9--great writing (like the Visitor ep.) but the acting is so FUCKING BAD I don't care if the story's good. That's true for EVERY episode of the show. VOY--some really bad writing, but even in "Threshold," R.D. MacNeal's acting is bars above any DS9 characer's.
godofmusic17 2 years ago
I personally think that TOS,TNG and DS9 were equally as good and neither one was better than the other. They were just all good for different reasons.
mummra4ever 2 years ago 3
Matt--you seem to focus only on the writing of material and characters in your trek reviews--these are not novels. In spite of the great things (and they are great things I grant you) that DS9 brought to the table, the only reasonably good acting from a main character came from Quark, the bartender. Now, the SUPPORTING characters, which I believe was DS9's greatest triumph, had some great moments, but what make TNG and VOY all around better is the ACTING from the leads.
godofmusic17 2 years ago
I agree 100%. The acting of the leads of DS9 was never that great. The supporting characters were always ten times more interesting and better acted than the mains. However, Matt is right DS9 was great because of its story and writing.
ohsdererggg206 2 years ago
I'm not so sure, i think the ds9 cast could act incredibly well. Quark naturally, but sisko, kira, odo too. The only one i didn't care for was bashir. he was ok when his lines had him doing his day to day stuff, but when the script demanded he do something different he was hopeless, like his OTT performance as an elderley man in the visitor, or when he had to act "evil" it was cringe worthy. As for voyager, most of them could act very well except the wooden chakotay and harry
u2atomicbomb 2 years ago
The Visitor was one of my favorite episodes. Good call.
sberg81 2 years ago
First time i saw the visitor tears came out of my eyes.
Dynaverse 2 years ago
duet. paradise. second skin. hard time. dr bashir i presume. far beyond the stars. its only a papaer moon...? This show continues to be a creative high in star treks history, and possibly the best u.s tv show in living memory. being a fan of ALL trek (why you seem to have the need to split fans into before and afters i dont know...?) i have to recognise that G.R couldnt have conceived of, or executed such a vision and the Ira behr etc pushed trek to the limits of what it always should have been.
crake2 3 years ago 2
No memorable scene? The first coming into my mind is that mindblowing episode, in which Sisko tricks the Romulans into the war, he arguing with himself, only to come to the conclusion he'd do it all again.
TOS/TNG was all about paradise, the good human race, DS9 was all about trouble in paradise.
wOoL87 3 years ago 6
matt makes no sense here. First there are dozens of episodes that explore not just space and but humanity, thing is unlike other shows DS9 does not do it at the expense of telling an great story.
And what kills me is he mentions this stuff and then five seconds later forgets it and says nothing happens. The truth is Matt loves TOS and he knows DS9 is better so he says DS9 "it's not real Star Trek" to make TOS always the best Star Trek.
Derekivery 3 years ago 4
I really don't agree with the idea that DS9 had no substance. It had an amazing major story arc, but it also had a lot of heart. While, yes, the Dominion war is the first thing that springs to mind, my favorite stuff is the little stuff. All of the characters respective arcs, the relationships, the smaller scenes that were simply about people being people, and the performances. Characters grew, and felt very very real on DS9 as did their relationships, so I'd say it had a lot of substance.
Lupus27 3 years ago 3
Erm... ...I think we're just different opinions here. I think that TOS was crappy, and don't remember as many moments, dialogues and lessons as from DS9. DS9 was an improvement to all of Star Trek, and I wish TOS would've been a lot more like DS9. I'd give it a ten, mind you.
CmdrWilliamRiker 3 years ago
Also, I feel that they ended this series too soon. The aftermath of the war could have been just as interesting as the war itself. I think one of the problems is that they created this complex series of events on such a large scale then realized. Oh we have only this many episodes in which to solve things. Thus the last season was rushed and seems silly in some places. I don't know if you read the post series books but these would have provided enough material for a 8th 9th and 10th season.
MarkAnthony27 3 years ago 3
A five?!? What drugs are you taking? So by your system 50% of the shows out there are better then DS9? I have to disagree this show would be an 8/10 if not higher. DS9 should best be viewed as a distant Cousin or Uncle you only see at holidays of the Star Trek family. The reason it is rightfully using the title of Star Trek because it uses the established cultures and relationships set up in previous shows. Thus saving time and allowing for deeper character development then previous shows
MarkAnthony27 3 years ago 3
Deep Space Nine is Babylon in Star Trek universe.
Civsuccess2 3 years ago 2
The show had substance. DS9 depicted war, religion, and character drama in a way that is still relevant today. The show just never reached a mainstream audience the way TOS and TNG did. In a way, both TOS and TNG seem dated upon rewatching, but whenever I rewatch an episode of DS9 it still feels relevant as if it would still be a good show i it was on today. Giving DS9 a 5 considering all the things you liked about it seems unfair, but everyone is entitled to an opinion.
cwalrus23 3 years ago 4
Trust me.
Galactica is good.
darklyasnight 3 years ago 3
I take you're point about the story arcs being forgettable at times. Single episodes can be punchy and memorable when they have a good idea at the core. Lets face it though, DS9 was the third trek iteration, which means there were over 250 trek episodes behind it. It's no wonder they moved into serial mode. There are only so many flash-in-the-pan stories you can churn out, and there's something to be said for a bit of character development, which earlier series didn't really offer.
chineolee 3 years ago 4
who cares if it is star trek or not its cool
daniel12344567 3 years ago
you need Look At Battlestar Galactica
kinggodzilla87 3 years ago
Matt, I love the intelligent analysis you bring to your reviews, but I have to disagree with you on the fundamental point of a franchise's original incarnation determining the path ever other version of it must follow. To use an analogy, think of Star Trek like a genre, which is fair to do because in genres, the defining characteristics are found in the iconography, setting, archetypes, and kinds of conflict. (Continued...)
joelkarnold 3 years ago
Star Trek possesses all of those qualities, so let's call it a genre and compare it to the western. If you said the westerns by John Ford bear little resemblance to a Leone western, I would agree. That film experimented with the genre, taking its formula, stylistics, and moral landscape in an entirely new direction. Yet it was still a western. You may disagree because those films were separate narratives, so Leone had no obligation to strike a certain tone set previously by Ford. (Cont'd)
joelkarnold 3 years ago
(Pt. 3)
DS9 was a continuation of the Star Trek story, so I can understand the desire to see the 'pure' ST defined by the original remain the formula. But ST lasted only three seasons, and while it was critically acclaimed, DS9 lasted seven seasons. That doesn't discount ST's wide influence. TV is a medium that thrives on innovation and pleasing the audience. ST was a beautiful exception, but I think DS9 found a great balance between great story and today's commercial climate.
joelkarnold 3 years ago
"Timeless quality" is a ridiculous expectation... what, you think humans are going to last forever?
mikedubya 3 years ago
Nope. No memorable moments. *rolls eyes*
whatever890327897895 3 years ago
Season one memorable moments: Show starts with battle of Wolf 359. Sisko punches Q. Kai Opaka dies. An insane Sisko build the clock that sits in his office for the rest of the series. The episode Duet. Vedek Winn is introduced.
whatever890327897895 3 years ago
Season two memorable moments : You see the man who 'raised' Odo. Bashir and O'Brien start becoming friends. You find out that Quark once had a relationship with Cardassian woman. Kang, Kor, and Koloth. 'The Maquis' parts one and two. The episode 'The wire' which begins the groundwork for Garak's character. O'Brien tortured. Jem'Hadar introduced.
whatever890327897895 3 years ago
Season three memorable moments: The Defiant is introduced. Odo finds his people. Quark marries a Klingon woman. Quark finds a Jem'Hadar baby. Thomas Riker steals the Defiant. 'Past Tense' parts one and two. Vedek Bareil dies. You find out odo has feelings for Kira. The obsidian order and the Tal Shiar wage war on the founders. Odo kills a fellow changeling.
whatever890327897895 3 years ago
Season four memorable moments: Worf joins. Martok introduced. Dukat finds Ziyal. First lesbian kiss on any Star Trek episode, ever. Quark, Rom and nog become the Roswell aliens. Sword of Kahless is found. The founders go to Earth. Red Squad first mentioned. You find out Odo loves Kira, but is afraid to tell her. Dukat becomes a freedom fighter. Kurn's memory erased. O'Brien 20 years in prison. Eddington is Maquis. Weyoun. Quark hires Garak to kill him. Odo turned into a solid.
whatever890327897895 3 years ago
Season five memorable moments: Crew captures Dominion ship. Jake on front lines of war. Trials and Tribble-ations. O'Briens' baby put into Kira. Baby changeling. Eddington dies. Martok, Worf, and Bashir in Dominion prison. Ennabaran Tain dies. Bashir's genetic secret discovered. Garak tries to kll Nog. War between Dominion and the Federation begins.
whatever890327897895 3 years ago