trekcc.org

well to me and my friends it was, back in the 90s. TNG era.
it was about a peaceful vision of the future, where people could control their emotions and work towards a greater goal.
It was about deep characterization,philosophical and ethical questions, that kept us awake, discussing it during the night. we were nerds. Trek was almost a religion, where you asked yourself. what would Picard do?


DS9 already was already weaker, being entertaining, but lacking most of the depth of tng. Voyager was ignored by us, but at least it played in the same universe. Prime directive already became more of a soft guideline than a fundamental principle.
everything after i dont even consider Star Trek anymore, because it lacks everything it made it. Just slapping Trek on the title is false advertisment.

appearently 30 years later, most of it is forgotten and Trek is just another random action scifi.

Counterpoint:

TNG showed you how wonderful life is when you're a Federation elite - oh, you don't need money, all your needs are taken care of, and Picard can sit in his posh room with his tea and opine about how everyone just needs to chill and be cool like him.

DS9 showed you how the rest of the Federation and the rest of the quadrant lived. Sisko might be the big bad Federation captain, but his dad is still selling soup on Earth. Remember, the Maquis exist because the Federation couldn't be arsed to actually protect their own citizens.

So you're saying TNG is "faculty lounge Trek?"

I mean, I've never thought of it that way before, but at the same time I can't say you're wrong...

AllenGould wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 12:05 pm ...Remember, the Maquis exist because the Federation couldn't be arsed to actually protect their own citizens.

And it also existed in TNG because let's not forget that these two shows ran parallel for a couple of seasons.

Armus wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 12:10 pm So you're saying TNG is "faculty lounge Trek?"

I mean, I've never thought of it that way before, but at the same time I can't say you're wrong...

I was thinking "Pleasantville Trek", myself - everyone is fine, the outside world doesn't affect us unless we choose it to, because we can make it go away whenever we want.

monty42 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 12:16 pm And it also existed in TNG because let's not forget that these two shows ran parallel for a couple of seasons.

True, but it also shows the difference - TNG shows up and tells them what to do, and then frowns disapprovingly because they're not playing nice. DS9 has to actually deal with the fallout. (Voyager wussed out and forgot that they were supposed to be two crews and thus threw away one of their best ongoing plots.)

Ensign Q wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 6:17 am
, but lacking most of the depth of tng.....

Funny but I always think of it opposite. TNG lacked depth since they just ran around, alien of the week, impose our morals and fly away....while DS9 dived into things, faced consequences. In my mind TNGs deepest moment was forced into it by DS9 when picard was forced to realize he couldn't 50 minutes if kumbaya speechify this whole maquis thing away.

but did it spawn philosophical discussions?

Ensign Q wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 2:10 pm but did it spawn philosophical discussions?

Yes.

Crosspost: "what Paddy Edge said, but longer".

Yes. For one, it elaborately introduced and expanded on the legacy that a race of "4-dimensional" beings (thus, being able to non-linearly perceive time) imprinted on the "3-dimensional" world -- and a specific, ancient, culture... which based a religion on them.
Arthur C. Clarke's famous quote (freely quoted: "all tech, properly far advanced, will seem like magic to those of yet-lesser advance") presented 'in the flesh' -- but not with technology; with fysiology/essence.
In this, they subtly pitch science and faith against one another -- what is an explainable phenomenon to some, is reason for deification to others.
And on top of that, we see a reluctant man cast into the role of prophet, and be near-deified himself; and we see him wrestle with the consequences of that... and eventually, we see him embrace this lecagy and being regarded as a loony by others (the admiralty, a.o.). We see how this could corrupt a person, but in this case, doesn't.
(Winn and Dukat are not great examples of 'plain simple' power corrupts, I admit; since the Pah-wraiths are very corruptive themselves, and the power they project/give thus not unbiased. Still, we see that Sisko, OTOH, struggles with how to wield his religious power righteously.)
These are themes that Frank Herbert also explored in Dune.

This is, just from the top of my head, a (1, uno, uks, one) DS9 theme (of legion) that I think can be approached very philosophically, if one is so inclined. I think you are (given what you said before); I think you might need (and want!) to open your mind more to things that are, vcurrently, a bit outside your usual scope. (That goes for more things than just which series of Trek you philosophise about -- it also goes for game ideas, perhaps. And styles / forms of communications.)

We've talked about this before (so I already know you are able to consider some of these things); these are not jabs/stabs, they are merely friendly suggestions.
I think Trek is even richer and more fun than you already give it credit for. (And we all can see how much you love the game, by sheer volume of time spent with it; and the franchise, by the sheer passion of your opinions on it.)

Also, DS9 is the Trek that has properly well-rounded villains, who all have the key characteristic of "they think they're the good guys". Dukat, Winn, the Dominion, Quark, Eddington... to all of them, the *Federation* is the problem. (And in no small number of cases, they're *right*).

Quark managed to get in some good "Here are the reasons you suck" speeches at Sisko, and had his schemes but I'd certainly hesitate to call him a villain.

Calling Sisko out on the Ferengi never having slavery to his face was probably one of the bravest things Quark ever did.

This!

Boffo97 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 4:27 pm Quark managed to get in some good "Here are the reasons you suck" speeches at Sisko, and had his schemes but I'd certainly hesitate to call him a villain.

Poking 'fun' at the utopian Federation and conversely at the highly capitalistic contemporary western world (often at the same time, by having Quark, of all people, be the one to point out the Federation's insidiousness) is quite nifty. And good writing!

AllenGould wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 4:15 pm Also, DS9 is the Trek that has properly well-rounded villains, who all have the key characteristic of "they think they're the good guys". Dukat, Winn, the Dominion, Quark, Eddington... to all of them, the *Federation* is the problem. (And in no small number of cases, they're *right*).

I overlooked this! But: "this, too"!
Less black and white thinking, like "Fed good, Rom bad".
(Vreenak didn't deserve that, Sisko didn't think he deserved it, but "it was 'necessary' and I'll learn to live".)

Eddington, who saw himself as Jean Valjean and cast Sisko in the role of the tragic villain, Javert. Okay, for someone who had read Les Misérables a few years before DS9 first aired, it was a bit much and too simple (but fun); but the distinction / reversal was indeed very interesting. And in that ep, Sisko certainly was the villain. (And made sure he wasn't tragic.)

Boffo97 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 4:27 pm...but I'd certainly hesitate to call him a villain.

There are episodes where Quark hires mercenaries and takes other actions that cause loss of life, especially early on. I'm not saying that causing death is the only qualification for villainousness (villainity?), but "Business as Usual" was a rough one for the "Quark isn't a villain" crowd. He generally will go to bat for one of the other people that live on the station, but I wonder if that's more of not s****ing where he eats than friendship. (Dax and Odo being the exceptions.) I don't think he always is one, but he definitely can be.

And hey, I think he changed. When he says he misses the Federation in the beginning of season 6, he's changed quite a bit.

And I also love the lecturing.

Villainy? (And scum?

Also: there's some philosophical debate on what's a villain, for ya.