• acockworkorange@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    You must have hated DS9.

    I see TNG with mostly 2D characters where the Federation and its ideals are the main driving force of the plots. When they deviate from that is when you get bad episodes (cough Sub Rosa cough). The characters had to shed some of their depth and become idealized for message to shine through.

    On DS9, you have a gritty view of a frontier without the influence of the Federation. The evolution of the characters and how they react to the changing reality around them is the center stage, and for that you need 3D, flawed characters to build development arcs upon.

    Then on DSC you have perfect 2D characters in a corrupt world and the show is about Michael Burnham but she’s also perfect and I can’t see what message they’re trying to send.

    • Nate Cox@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think DS9 set a precedent that was bad for the franchise, but I don’t hate it; the show felt like it understood its roots. I took DS9 as a way to explore how federation values addressed a galaxy not quite there yet.

      It didn’t diminish the hopeful future by saying that “actually the federation is evil" it just said “listen, we still have work to do”.

      Watching Cisco wrestle internally with reconciling who he knew he was supposed to be while the galaxy tested that was at least interesting on an intellectual level.

      I think that bit of nuance got lost though, so I do kinda wish it had never happened.