Love for Sisko?
- Thread starter Firefilm
- Start date
But...but Sisko has chaaaaaracter!
Seriously, though, the Great Divide in Star Trek is between people who like the idealism of most of the shows versus people who more appreciate the ambiguity of DS9. I happen to be one of the latter, though that doesn't mean I also appreciate...all of the Captains, actually, which is somewhat rare.
I like Sisko best not because he's the 'Best Captain' that represents the series, but because how his character is designed, and how that evolves over the course of the series, which really doesn't happen with the others, not more than a marginal amount.
*Shrugs.* Picard's pretty awesome, too. Peace over Patrick Stewart?
Seriously, though, the Great Divide in Star Trek is between people who like the idealism of most of the shows versus people who more appreciate the ambiguity of DS9. I happen to be one of the latter, though that doesn't mean I also appreciate...all of the Captains, actually, which is somewhat rare.
I like Sisko best not because he's the 'Best Captain' that represents the series, but because how his character is designed, and how that evolves over the course of the series, which really doesn't happen with the others, not more than a marginal amount.
*Shrugs.* Picard's pretty awesome, too. Peace over Patrick Stewart?
Rogue 09 said:
Dude, if you don't like the show, you don't have to watch it.... And if you are going to give criticism make it constructive, otherwise it is just irritating.
OT: I just wanted to say that I love how NOT being played by Patrick Stewart is considered a valid complaint against Sisko
I have watched all of TOS all of TNG all of DS9 2 seasons of Voyager and all of Enterprise ( and have seen all the films) and I hold that Picard is the best. I leave you with this:
And yet still no Mackenzie Calhoun! What the hell is wrong with being the biggest badass in the Federation?
I always like Picard over everyone else because he had a more varied crew to deal with the problems that came up, and he knew which people needed to go where to get the job done. On Voyager and TOS, they always seemed to use the same 3 or 4 people over and over again, unless there was a special episode who focused on one character, like the Tovix episode. Also, Picard had some really good dialogue with the other characters, and always had something funny to say.
I think the comments Dan and Kyle made about DS9 are thought provoking. I personally think that DS9 was the best series. Dan apparently thought it was so bad he couldn't get through the pilot (though the pilot for every trek series was terrible, so that isn't really a fair measure of quality.)
Dan says that he watches Star Trek for escapism, and from that perspective I can agree with him. DS9 focuses more on main cast character interaction (internal conflict) while TNG is mostly about the fantastic adventures of people in space (external conflict.) Different approaches to Star Trek both with their strengths and weaknesses.
Also, I want to point something out that everyone, even Dan, seems to think but is wrong. Sisko started no war. Not the Dominion war, not the Klingon war, none of the wars in DS9 were started or even the fault of Sisko (except in that he discovered the worm hole, the focus of all these wars.) What most people seem to think was Sisko starting a war was actually Sisko refusing to respond with appeasement when a fascist government took over a neighboring nation though force of arms.
Kyle made a point about Sisko shifting his morality to suit the situation, and that serving under such an officer would be intolerable. I disagree. I think that Sisko did not hold to the standard Starfleet morality but remained consistent within the moral code that he followed. Sisko believes that the ends can justify the means, especially when billions of lives and the freedom of an entire quarter of a galaxy is at stake. Sisko did not hold a specific set of rules he would never break under any circumstances, but he did carefully judged each situation before resorting to means outside of normal morality.
Picard, on the other hand, I might find intolerable to server under for moral reasons. On two separate occasions, Picard was willing to allow an entire sentient species be wiped out by natural disasters when it was within his power to easily save them simply because the prime directive prevented them from interfering. In "Pen Pals" (TNG S2E15) a sentient race is about to be wiped out by a geological instability the Enterprise can easily fix without the race even knowing they were ever there.
The dilemma is simple: Do we save these people, or allow them to be wiped out because the prime directive applies in this situation. The fact that Picard or anyone else would even have to think about this before fixing the problem is, to me, disgusting and morally reprehensible. Picard decides that the prime directive applies and that he will leave these people to their fate. Data is only able to change Picards mind by playing a message from a small child of the species. Only when he actually hears the plea for help of a suffering child is he finally willing to bend his moral code so he can save an entire planet full of people.
And do you know what the real kicker is? This episode takes place in season two of TNG. If you didn't know, season one and two of TNG had many episodes that were essentially Picard telling anyone who would listen how morally superior the human race is.
What do I take from this? Picard is morally inflexible. He has accepted a rigid set of moral rules in place of actual moral consideration. Picard is willing to commit negligent genocide because he has allowed himself to be duped into believing it is actually the moral thing to do! I would find serving under such a man intolerable.
Dan says that he watches Star Trek for escapism, and from that perspective I can agree with him. DS9 focuses more on main cast character interaction (internal conflict) while TNG is mostly about the fantastic adventures of people in space (external conflict.) Different approaches to Star Trek both with their strengths and weaknesses.
Also, I want to point something out that everyone, even Dan, seems to think but is wrong. Sisko started no war. Not the Dominion war, not the Klingon war, none of the wars in DS9 were started or even the fault of Sisko (except in that he discovered the worm hole, the focus of all these wars.) What most people seem to think was Sisko starting a war was actually Sisko refusing to respond with appeasement when a fascist government took over a neighboring nation though force of arms.
Kyle made a point about Sisko shifting his morality to suit the situation, and that serving under such an officer would be intolerable. I disagree. I think that Sisko did not hold to the standard Starfleet morality but remained consistent within the moral code that he followed. Sisko believes that the ends can justify the means, especially when billions of lives and the freedom of an entire quarter of a galaxy is at stake. Sisko did not hold a specific set of rules he would never break under any circumstances, but he did carefully judged each situation before resorting to means outside of normal morality.
Picard, on the other hand, I might find intolerable to server under for moral reasons. On two separate occasions, Picard was willing to allow an entire sentient species be wiped out by natural disasters when it was within his power to easily save them simply because the prime directive prevented them from interfering. In "Pen Pals" (TNG S2E15) a sentient race is about to be wiped out by a geological instability the Enterprise can easily fix without the race even knowing they were ever there.
The dilemma is simple: Do we save these people, or allow them to be wiped out because the prime directive applies in this situation. The fact that Picard or anyone else would even have to think about this before fixing the problem is, to me, disgusting and morally reprehensible. Picard decides that the prime directive applies and that he will leave these people to their fate. Data is only able to change Picards mind by playing a message from a small child of the species. Only when he actually hears the plea for help of a suffering child is he finally willing to bend his moral code so he can save an entire planet full of people.
And do you know what the real kicker is? This episode takes place in season two of TNG. If you didn't know, season one and two of TNG had many episodes that were essentially Picard telling anyone who would listen how morally superior the human race is.
What do I take from this? Picard is morally inflexible. He has accepted a rigid set of moral rules in place of actual moral consideration. Picard is willing to commit negligent genocide because he has allowed himself to be duped into believing it is actually the moral thing to do! I would find serving under such a man intolerable.
But if someone got hurt in that process, Picard would at least express regret. Sisko outright notes in a log entry (later deleted) that he felt no remorse or guilt for his actions.
You have got to be kidding me. Really. It's like you never watched the end monologue at all. Let's rewatch it:
This is a man who is plainly not at all OK with what he and Garak did. Profoundly so.
At oh-eight-hundred hours, station time... the Romulan Empire formally declared war against the Dominion. They've already struck fifteen bases along the Cardassian border. So, this is a huge victory for the good guys! [Sisko says this in a somewhat sarcastic manner] This may even be the turning point of the entire war! There's even a "Welcome to the Fight" party tonight in the wardroom!... So... I lied. I cheated. I bribed men to cover up the crimes of other men. I am an accessory to murder. But most damning of all... I think I can live with it... And if I had to do it all over again... I would. Garak was right about one thing ? a guilty conscience is a small price to pay for the safety of the Alpha Quadrant. [Not the words of a man who isn't wracked with guilt over what he and Garak did.] So I will learn to live with it... Because I can live with it... I can live with it. [He's actively trying to convince himself that he can do it, but the fact he has to try so hard to convince himself speaks volumes. They even shift camera angles to emphasise this, and he shifts his posture to emphasis his moral and mental discomfort.] Computer: erase that entire personal log. [Why? Shame. The presence of that log would be a constant reminder of the damage he wrought, even if it was for the greater good.]
Sure, with a simplistic reading of the above text, you could argue that Sisko is the some remorseless Machiavellian figure whose credo is that the ends justify the means, but watching the monologue being performed reveals the opposite: here we have a man profoundly uncomfortable with the kind of personal compromises he's ended up having to make. He is psychically damaged and doing everything he can to carry on with his duty and to protect everything he holds dear, even if that means sacrificing his self-respect.
That is why Sisko is the best captain.
You have got to be kidding me. Really. It's like you never watched the end monologue at all. Let's rewatch it:
This is a man who is plainly not at all OK with what he and Garak did. Profoundly so.
At oh-eight-hundred hours, station time... the Romulan Empire formally declared war against the Dominion. They've already struck fifteen bases along the Cardassian border. So, this is a huge victory for the good guys! [Sisko says this in a somewhat sarcastic manner] This may even be the turning point of the entire war! There's even a "Welcome to the Fight" party tonight in the wardroom!... So... I lied. I cheated. I bribed men to cover up the crimes of other men. I am an accessory to murder. But most damning of all... I think I can live with it... And if I had to do it all over again... I would. Garak was right about one thing ? a guilty conscience is a small price to pay for the safety of the Alpha Quadrant. [Not the words of a man who isn't wracked with guilt over what he and Garak did.] So I will learn to live with it... Because I can live with it... I can live with it. [He's actively trying to convince himself that he can do it, but the fact he has to try so hard to convince himself speaks volumes. They even shift camera angles to emphasise this, and he shifts his posture to emphasis his moral and mental discomfort.] Computer: erase that entire personal log. [Why? Shame. The presence of that log would be a constant reminder of the damage he wrought, even if it was for the greater good.]
Sure, with a simplistic reading of the above text, you could argue that Sisko is the some remorseless Machiavellian figure whose credo is that the ends justify the means, but watching the monologue being performed reveals the opposite: here we have a man profoundly uncomfortable with the kind of personal compromises he's ended up having to make. He is psychically damaged and doing everything he can to carry on with his duty and to protect everything he holds dear, even if that means sacrificing his self-respect.
That is why Sisko is the best captain.
For one episode? Seriously?talideon said:
Because, you know, that was the whole reason why "In The Pale Moonlight" was written - because they wanted to show Sisko in a less ruthless, more human portrayal. In every other episode he's the same expressionless, monotone speaking captain we (unfortunately) know so well. Here's a challenge: find me another episode where he's shown in the same sympathetic light (in relation to his role as captain) as In the Pale Moonlight. You can't. The best they can do is show his relationship with Jake and his obsession with baseball.
If he was given the same ethical trials to deal with and dealt with them in the same way as that episode (which I'll agree is one of the best episodes of DS9, but not the best - that honor goes to The Begotten) THEN, and only then, might I be prepared to consider Sisko as one of the three best captains along with Picard and Kirk. But he still wouldn't win imo.
On a more general note, after Picard the quality of TV Trek plummeted. This is why Sisko wasn't great - it wasn't his fault, he simply suffered from poor writing. If we got a selection of the writers of the best episodes across the TV Trek pantheon - The Begotten, Mirror Mirror, The Inner Light, Living Witness - and set them to work on DS9 then undoubtedly Sisko would have been far better than he was.
Bullshit! Sisko didn't feel any remorse for his actions?! That entire episode was about Sisko's guilt over his actions! What made him superior to either Kirk or Picard was that at the end of everything, despite how abhorrent he found what he did, he realized that he could live with the guilt and knowledge of what he did, because it saved everyone! Sisko was greater than any of the other Captains. Not just because he had a strong sense of morality, but because he was willing to question his own positions and go against his own principles if the situation demanded it. He didn't shift his moral alignment, he was the man willing to make the hard calls. The man willing to live with horrible guilt and suffering in order to save everyone. He was the strongest of all captains.
Such a disservice to captains in general to restrict it to star trek.
I mean, there's Stanley Tweedle. Stanley. Tweedle.
I mean, there's Stanley Tweedle. Stanley. Tweedle.
I get why DS9 is some people's favorite. You don't get the same experience going back and watching on Netflix as you do when you grow up watching Star Trek week to week. DS9 wasn't exactly in the "DVR age" but if your formative years had that show in it (and not your post college years like me) then it could easily be a your favorite. And there's nothing wrong with that. Some people (it seems awfully prevalent here on the escapist) think "nostalgia" is some kind of bad word. Like it's not a legitimate reason to like something. Most of the stuff we talk about here exists as a hobby, pastime, or favored activity (books, tv, movies, and of course games.) And if ENJOYMENT is the point of these things (and it is) then why is it a BAD thing when nostalgia makes someone enjoy something MORE?
But that's a little off topic. If that's why DS9 gets "best Star Trek" from someone then sure, it makes a difference. I personally never got DS9. First and foremost Star Trek was about exploration and discovery. And sorry, YOU CAN'T DO THAT IN A SPACE STATION. It doesn't move, yes "the wormhole" but still. Just go with a new sci fi IP and I'd be ok with it. It would have been a decent sci-fi show about a space station that wasn't as good as Babylon 5.
But that's a little off topic. If that's why DS9 gets "best Star Trek" from someone then sure, it makes a difference. I personally never got DS9. First and foremost Star Trek was about exploration and discovery. And sorry, YOU CAN'T DO THAT IN A SPACE STATION. It doesn't move, yes "the wormhole" but still. Just go with a new sci fi IP and I'd be ok with it. It would have been a decent sci-fi show about a space station that wasn't as good as Babylon 5.
Did you watch any of the other Trek series? Every captain did that. The whole Voyager series was based around precisely that as Janeway's dilemma - keeping to the prime directive or saving the crew. Which, I would argue, is what makes it inferior. Sisko, Picard and Kirk had some depth to them. But TOS and TNG asked the big, hard questions, while DS9 was principally a soap opera in space. If we're going to discuss DS9 we can't limit ourselves to "In the Pale Moonlight". Let's start with "Let He Who Is Without Sin...", which is a more typical episode of the series: relationships are compromised by some event, and then are resolved again after some stuff happens in between. That's your classic DS9.bz316 said:
I could have gotten behind Sisko, if not for Avery Brooks'...bizarre acting. I found it extremely difficult to take him seriously most of the time, especially when he was having one of his really intense moments where he started shouting dramatically and panting for no apparent reason.
His acting, combined with Jadzia being the most useless and obnoxious character on any Star Trek show ever, made me less interested in DS9 than I could have been. I liked the idea of a morally grey Star Trek with an overarching main plot, but I didn't really enjoy the show until season six or so.
Except for Garak. Garak is amazing from start to finish. I would have his devious lizard babies.
His acting, combined with Jadzia being the most useless and obnoxious character on any Star Trek show ever, made me less interested in DS9 than I could have been. I liked the idea of a morally grey Star Trek with an overarching main plot, but I didn't really enjoy the show until season six or so.
Except for Garak. Garak is amazing from start to finish. I would have his devious lizard babies.
You want a great captain. Look no further than Rachel Garrett of the Enterprise-C. Sure, we only get her for 1 episode, but look what she did. She took her ship back into a battle that they had no way of coming out alive, all to save millions of people they'd never even met, and would never meet due to the fact that she changed history.
Also, I highly recommend reading the book Hollow Men if you're a big Garak fan.
How'd you like Garak's interplay with Bashir?EmperorSubcutaneous said:
Also, I highly recommend reading the book Hollow Men if you're a big Garak fan. Very entertaining, and one of the saving graces of Bashir's character early on before he was developed much. Actually it was the developing relationships between the characters that made me start enjoying DS9 more than anything else, since it seems like for the first half of the series they didn't give much thought to how most of the characters would feel about each other. (Seriously, I doubt Jadzia and Kira would ever have gotten along, but they're BFFs for some unexplained reason.)AdmiralMemo said:How'd you like Garak's interplay with Bashir?EmperorSubcutaneous said:
I'm planning on making my first forays into the world of Star Trek books with A Stitch in Time, since that one was written by Andrew Robinson himself. I'll probably branch out after that, so I'll add Hollow Men to my list of future books to read. Thanks!