Most Votes
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on February 28th, 2024 | 8476 votes
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 7040 votes
Most Comments
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 68 comments
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 20 comments
This shouldn't even be a contest (Score:5, Insightful)
Because Shatner.
Re:This shouldn't even be a contest (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This shouldn't even be a contest (Score:5, Insightful)
Kirk...was...a CAPTAIN.
Picard is a Manager.
Re:This shouldn't even be a contest (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree that Kirk was really defining the image of a captain - creative, dynamic and moody.
With Picard the situation was different and the manager style was better suited there too when the crew was larger.
Both TOS and TNG were good and it's hard to compare them head to head. TOS was groundbreaking in many ways, it changed the playing field for Science Fiction on TV and also for other TV shows since they did things that nobody dared to do at the time. TNG was less ground-breaking, but still important since it was promoting the necessity of doing science to get progress.
Later shows like DS9, Voyager etc. were watered down, and more riding on the legacy. That said I think that the reboot of Star Trek with a young crew looks promising. It has a more modern touch and plays more on the tension between members of the crew than what could be seen in Star Trek since TNG.
Re:This shouldn't even be a contest (Score:5, Informative)
What? DS9 had one of the all-time darkest episodes of the Trek series. Watered down my ass, the characters actually evolved!
Check for yourself. [youtube.com]
Re:This shouldn't even be a contest (Score:5, Insightful)
What? DS9 had one of the all-time darkest episodes of the Trek series. Watered down my ass, the characters actually evolved!
Check for yourself.
To boldly stay on a space station and reason with other humanoids?
Voyager, soap operatic as it was, at least had some of the Star Trek spirit. In my view, which obviously differs from yours, DS9 was more of a politically correct copycat version of Babylon 5.
Re:This shouldn't even be a contest (Score:5, Funny)
It continuing mission:
defend boring, poor worlds,
to try out new defense plans and terrible battle tactics,
to foolishly stay where no one wanted to stay before...
Re:This shouldn't even be a contest (Score:5, Interesting)
I've always felt that the next Star Trek should be Star Trek: Ferengi Trader. The ship would be a merchant ship always looking for a deal (probably even some smuggling). You'd get a lot of the exploration that made TOS and TNG great but would be able to introduce different types of conflict.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This shouldn't even be a contest (Score:5, Interesting)
"Reason with other humanoids"? I seem to remember plenty of firefights in DS9.
In fact DS9 is the most underrated of all the treks. Sure the "let the trouble come running to us" thing got a little old in the early series, but once they got their own starship and could move around a little more than in those Transit van-shaped runabouts the problem was solved. The characters in DS9 were complex and intriguing. Even Quark, the Requisite Annoying Character, was interesting and a damn sight more necessary than that Neelix clown. Garack - what was a body supposed to make of him? His banter with Gul Dukat (one of the best developed baddies ever) was legendary. Gimme Sisko's badass attitude over Janeway's sighing and unconvincing attempts to be stern any day. Bashir, the arrogant but likable prick; O'Brien, the down-to-earth family man; Dax, the wise old man in the body of a hot young lady; Kira, the hot redhead who has to work on a daily basis for someone she thinks is a living god; Odo, the jobsworth shape-shifter who turns out to be an outcast from a race that happens to threaten the entire alpha quadrant; General Martok, the venerable Klingon commander who's as aggressive on your side as he is when he's against you.
What has Voyager got? A boatload of nobodies. Tuvok, a character who proved that Vulcans can be as unlikable as they are boring; Kim, [no description available because he's got no personality]; Paris, supposed to be a hardened ex-con but comes across more like the office slacker; Torres, a missed opportunity to develop what might have been an interesting conflict between her Klingon half and her human half; Chakotay, [no description available because he's got no personality]. As for Kes, the less that's said the better. Her replacement with 7 of 9 was great eye candy and kinda interesting, but that was just about the only interesting character in the show. The fact that things were so bad that they had to resort to the cheap gimmick of shrink-wrapping a hot female body into a skin suit says it all about how desperate they were to attract an audience.
Re:This shouldn't even be a contest (Score:4, Funny)
Voyager was a Red Dwarf knock off.
Complete with the hologram and talking cat.
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed! Star Trek needs to have some TREK in it! (Score:3)
Without treking around the universe and exploring, Star Trek isn't nearly as fun. ;-)
Gilligan's Island (Score:3)
Janeway would then wap-wap-wap that crew member with her hat and yell, "Neelix!!"
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think you know what a soap opera is.
That's the nicest thing anyone has said to me this week.
Thank you!
Re:This shouldn't even be a contest (Score:4, Insightful)
ds9 was a soap opera
Re:This shouldn't even be a contest (Score:5, Insightful)
Sisko... The difference between Commander Sisko in the 1st season and Captain Sisko in the last is like the difference between night and day. He starts out broken and kind of lost. He doesn't even know if he wants to stay in Starfleet. Later he kind of finds himself, and slowly grows more and more comfortable with his role as The Emissary in Bajoran Religion. Then there was the Dominion War, which was cool. We knew through TNG and TOS that war still happened (several with the Klingons get mentioned and a couple with the Romulans), so it was interesting to see how the Federation really reacted to it.
DS9 was darker, but it still held to the "Morality Play" ideal that Roddenberry snuck into many many episodes in TOS and TNG. "In the Hands of the Prophets" was absolutely dripping with Socio-Political commentary that is still incredibly relevant nearly 20 years later.
Oh, and lets not forget that, while Picard may have always wanted to, only Sisko ever had the guts to actually punch Q in the face. That takes some balls right there.
Re: (Score:3)
That was Voyager
Re: (Score:3)
I did not notice the overacting in B5 (or didn't care), but the story is epic. B5 was essentially created as a very long movie that is split up in parts (almost every episode counts to the overall story) and watching it the second (and third) time I noticed a lot of little details that foreshadowed the later developments (which I didn't notice the first time, just like the characters).
Re:This shouldn't even be a contest (Score:5, Interesting)
I can see why many might prefer Kirk or Picard, but for me Sisko carries both 80% of the passion of a Kirk and 80% of the dignity and cerebralness of Picard. It is a near perfect blend.
IMNSHO, DS9 has hands down the best overall writing. It is as consistent throughout as TNG in its best years. The main characters are well written and have somewhere to go from the outset. Unlike the TNG, the main characters largely *do not* get along at the beginning, for entirely plausible reasons. The entire first season is about whether this project is simply going to fly apart, and how the characters evolve to see their respective alliances forward.
The level of drama might not quite rival TOS, but it compares very favorably with TNG or Voyager. It may not be your cup of tea, but it is not watered down in any coherent sense of that term.
The most watered down was TNG. TNG spent two full seasons struggling to find any sense of fun. Really, they were too ambitious and trying to tackle subtle topics that did not work well in a 1-hour dramatic format. The writers were trying to create drama around lovely people having misunderstandings. I appreciate what they were attempting to accomplish, but it was often not very successful.
Voyager was a very promising concept that suffered from terribly inconsistent execution. The initial concept was two sets of enemies from the Alpha quadrant thrown together on the other side of the galaxy, with the "normal" rules of how to run a starship open to debate. But they chickened out, time and again, and found comfortable ruts to live in. Furthermore, the writing of Janeway wavered and she lacked a clear moral perspective, which is pretty much unforgivable in my eyes..
Re:Why is TOS different from Lost in Space (Score:4, Insightful)
By today's standards, but still rings true. I like the cheesy aliens and retro-costumes, and SFX. Thats not even being brought up.
"and pretty much a plot formula"
I disagree, TOS delt with social and political issues the rest didn't.
beause we are dealing with deeper issues that are prevalent to real life, than lost in space. THATS WHY!
Yes, star trek was dealing with issues like enviromentalism, and the harm industrialization was doing to native enviroments. It was also questioning boundries on what we call "intellegent life", and civiization, and sentience. "Devil in the dark" the episode you mentioned did just that.
Science fiction is not about laser guns, and warp/hyper drives, and outerspace, and all the trinkets and other shit they have. Its also not supposed to be escapism for those who can't cope with reality.
Its there to tell relatable parables and critique very real, very modern society. Its been traditionally used to touch topics too hot to touch dirrectly.
Star Trek TOS was dead on the money with this. They covered topics like the war in vietnam, Mutallly Assured Destruction, comming of age stories, hippies, racism, ecology, enviromental destruction, etc...
TNG did this half assed, voyager did this occationally, if not half assing it.
Lost in Space never touched issues beyond basic black and white morality plays on tired old tropes. Star Trek was current.
Re:This shouldn't even be a contest (Score:5, Insightful)
You clearly have no idea what a captain does. Most of it is managing. You rarely leave the ship - because technically that's the only place you are in command. On the ship you are lord and master of a huge, armed vehicle. Off the ship, you're just a guy with a hand held gun.
Kirk was an adventurer. He loved flying by the seat of his pants with just a hand weapon.
Picard was a captain. He liked to command ship's weapons.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sorry and I know it's not my place and I hate to be a grammer Nazi.
G-R-A-M-M-A-R
What kind of question is this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What kind of question is this? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What kind of question is this? (Score:5, Funny)
So. It only proves 41% of the people on /. are idiots, I think most of us already knew that.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What kind of question is this? (Score:5, Interesting)
41% of the people on /. are idiots
The difficult part is deciding which 41% that is.
Re:What kind of question is this? (Score:4, Funny)
Picard was that moody, strong exterior type that women would know is secretly filled with passion and romance.
Kirk was the kind of guy who picks up girls at bars and is nailing them by the time they've reached the alley.
Chicks like Picard, guys wish they could be Kirk.
Re:What kind of question is this? (Score:4)
And a ridiculously bad actor that couldn't get an act in a Shakespeare play if his life depended on it.
I'll just leave this [youtube.com] here.
Re:What kind of question is this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, but the good half, or the evil half? The transporter split him in into two in one episode. And then a female occupied his body and was captain as well; does that count? Oh, and the evil one from the parallel universe, as well. And wasn't there a robot version of him; made by "Lurch" out of The Adams Family, on a spinning disk? Or when he got 'methed up sniffing bath salts from a flower?
All those, and I am not even awake yet . . . there have been Many Faces of Kirk . . .
Re: (Score:2)
That episode was Mirror Mirror, one of my favourites
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror,_Mirror_(Star_Trek:_The_Original_Series) [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What kind of question is this? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What kind of question is this? (Score:5, Interesting)
That said, I would have voted for Captain Sulu.
Re:What kind of question is this? (Score:4, Interesting)
Picard seemed overqualified for his role. He was more of a peer to the admirals and hardly ever seemed a subordinate. I could imagine him at Starfleet HQ or high up in the diplomatic corps, getting things done left and right instead of going on one mission at a time. He was probably secretly pulling a Riker as well and evaded advancement in order to stay with the ship.
Re:What kind of question is this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What kind of question is this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Quite possibly - but also note that he was in charge of the Federation's flagship. As such he was effectively in the diplomatic corps, as that is the ship you will send on a diplomatic mission. (It's also a role you might give to an admiral, or an admiral-in-training.)
Comparing Kirk and Picard is a always a problem. Kirk was an explorer, and a fighter - defending and expanding the Federation's boundaries. Picard was a diplomat and a manager - maintaining the peace within the Federation or with allies. Either would have been horrible at the other's job, but both were good at their role. 'Best' implies one of those roles is more important than the other, and they aren't.
Re:What kind of question is this? (Score:5, Insightful)
If Earth ever has a "starfleet", every ship captain would WANT to be like Kirk. Daring, brave, unconventional, dangerous, gets all the chicks, beats everything against all odds. But the best captains would be like Picard.
Kirk was a better character for an action series. Picard was a better image of a real-life captain.
Re:What kind of question is this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Guessing not many of you have actually studied military history or been in it.
Every military needs its Kirks / Pattons / Chesty Pullers / etc.
Every military also needs its Picards / Eisenhowers / etc.
Any military led solely by one or the other is likely to fail. The two types complement and balance each other; cancel each other's weaknesses while multiplying strengths.
Re:What kind of question is this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Star Fleet? Military? I don't even...
Re:What kind of question is this? (Score:4, Informative)
They're armed, they have a system of ranks, they fight the Federation's wars. If that's not a military, what are they? Granted, they do a lot of things that are not in the remit of a traditional military, but as far as I can see, they're still a military.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What kind of question is this? (Score:4, Insightful)
It depends on the time.
In Kirk's time, and mission. He had a lot more exploration, of new and dangerous worlds. For that we needed a good tactical captain. In a fight Kirk will always win, he is really good at military tactics. While he is OK with first contact stuff and diplomacy, he really shines after his negotiations breaks down and need to show them how much better he is.
In Picard's time, and mission. He is flying the Flag Ship his mission while has some exploration it is in areas that have been deemed safe, exploring the gaps in areas that have been explored. However he is in a position where there is a firestorm of pressure to not destabilize the area, so there is far more diplomacy and first contact going on. For the most part it seems whenever the ship was to go into battle Will Riker will somehow be on command and Picard is stuck on an away mission, or abducted. So it is tough to say how good a tactical commander he is.
So they are perfect captains for their time and mission.
Now Archer wasn't that good because he really lacked strong battle skills or diplomacy. He seemed to cause more problems then he solved.
Janeway she was a scientist turned captain, she did a good job pissing off the Delta Quadrant.
Sisko would have been a better captain if the writers didn't copy Babylon 5 and make him the Jesus for aliens. His tactics seem better for larger scale war. While they said he was more of engineer he didn't show it that much unless he was board. His diplomacy was sloppy too, often causing more problems than solving.
Re:What kind of question is this? (Score:4, Informative)
For the most part it seems whenever the ship was to go into battle Will Riker will somehow be on command and Picard is stuck on an away mission, or abducted.
My recollection is that Picard was usually in overall command but Riker was oftentimes the one that was responsible for issuing firing orders, course changes, etc. This is actually somewhat realistic for a large warship; the Captain can usually be found in CIC (Combat Information Center) worrying about the "big picture", while the First Officer remains on the bridge and deals with course changes and the like. They don't have a CIC in Star Trek but the overall theory is still valid.
Read this account [usswashington.com] of the USS Washington at Guadalcanal, when she went toe-to-toe with Japanese warships in a surface action. Here's one of the more interesting tidbits:
On Washington's bridge, Lieutenant Ray Hunter still had the conn. He had just heard that South Dakota had gone off the air and had seen Walke and Preston "blow sky high." Dead ahead lay their burning wreckage, while hundreds of men were swimming in the water and Japanese ships were racing in.
Hunter had to do something. The course he took now could decide the war. "Come left," he said, and Washington straightened out on a course parallel to the one on which she was steaming. Washington's rudder change put the burning destroyers between her and the enemy, preventing her from being silhouetted by their fires.
It wasn't the Task Force Commander (Admiral Lee) or even the Washington's Captain ordering course changes, it was the officer who had the Conn, a "mere" Lieutenant in the position of making life-or-death decisions for a warship with a crew of two thousand men.
A ship the size of the Enterprise-D, with a crew of over a thousand, would likely operate in a similar manner. Remember, the Enterprise is a ship, not a fighter jet.
Re:What kind of question is this? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
In short, Kirk should have been court marshalled and sentenced to 20 hours of Klingon Anal sex - him being the receiver.
Not sure if the (human) giver would be better of.
Re:What kind of question is this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Log would have my vote if! Sponsored by Blammo (Score:2)
Captain Zlog (Score:5, Insightful)
Who is this "Log" you speak of? Surely you mean Zlog.
I thought... (Score:2)
Re:I thought... (Score:5, Informative)
Sisko is promoted to Captain on Stardate 48959
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Sisko [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
that and he had that cool ass middle finger F you ship
Re: (Score:2)
The USS Defiant, which was a warship.
Re: (Score:3)
General Herpes here... All it takes is one losing battle.
Obligatory (Score:5, Funny)
The only question I
ever thought was hard
is "Do I like Kirk?
Or do I like Picard?"
If red-shirt ensigns had their choice... (Score:4, Funny)
If red-shirt ensigns had their choice, they'd choose Picard. At least, he didn't have every unknown ensign killed on an away mission
Re: (Score:3)
No they will get killed if they get a name, and perhaps a small backstory.
Main Character: So Ensign Jones how are your baby twin sons doing.
Ensign Jones: Oh they are doing great they are just learning to talk and they run to me every time I get back to my quarters.
A sure sign of Ensign Jones death, the bigger the backstory the more morning from the Main Character over his death.
William "Brace for impact" Riker (Score:2, Funny)
Since he is responsible for some of the more spectacular scenes in Star Trek.
Picard (Score:2)
He was an idealist and a pretty strong willed individual who was devoted to his duty and morality. Plus he was the Klingon arbiter and mind melded with Sarek. He had an air of rationality about him which I appeal to. He kept Starfleet in line more than once, which may have been my determining factor. He wasn't afraid to question authority and put everything on the line to stand up for what's right.
Kirk was more of a loose cannon. Clearly the best strategist and dauntless in the face of danger. It was
Re: (Score:2)
An English actor playing French role in a US production.
Haha.
Re: (Score:3)
Picard wasn't the only thing to completely change in First Contact. The entire point of the Borg up until then was that they were a collective consciousness (which was a great monster for a generation of Americans brought up to be terrified of communists, but I digress) and it didn't matter how many individuals you killed because only the collective mattered, not the individuals. Each drone, even each ship, was interchangeable and disposable. No matter how many you killed, if you didn't get them all then
I picked Kirk (Score:5, Funny)
But at least Picard had the courage to admit he was bald.
Re: (Score:3)
To baldly go...
Re:I picked Kirk (Score:4, Funny)
Kirk by a parsec (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As all Brits know, tea can solve 99% of all problems and cure 99% of all diseases. I still voted for Kirk though.
And still the bloody Seppos saw fit to chuck it all in the river (the Hudson was it?) - Philistines!
Zapp Brannigan (Score:4, Funny)
Fry: Uh, just so we'll know, who's the enemy?
Brannigan: A valid question! We know nothing about them, their language, their history or what they look like. But we can assume this: they stand for everything we don't stand for. Also they told me you guys look like dorks.
Slog (Score:5, Informative)
By the way, it's captain Slog not log...
Re: (Score:2)
Aye, you beat me to it!
Re: (Score:2)
Slog Supplemental... I've heard worse names..
Sisko (Score:2)
Demographics (Score:2)
Methinks the results of this poll are saying a lot about the aging demographics of the /. readership.
I shall return to my cave and slumber now. You have been graabein'ed.
Kirk, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Right tool for the right job (Score:3, Insightful)
Every club in the golf bag has its purpose. Kirk was a tool for comedy. Each episode was like watching Mad Men with the alpha males drinking and womanizing. When Kirk was on the bridge and told Yoeman Rand to get him a cup of coffee, I expected him to slap her on the ass and add "honey".
Re:Right tool for the right job (Score:5, Insightful)
Almost like on was filmed in the 90's, and the other in the 60's.
Bear in mind, TOS advanced women and minorities in main stream TV.
Obligatory "Get a life!" (Score:3)
(With links, because there are a lot of humorless /.ers (and some really young ones, too), and some have mod points.)
"Get a life!" [dailymotion.com]
or "Get a life!" [amazon.com]
or "Get a life!" [imdb.com]
But to answer the poll question: M5 [memory-alpha.org].
Missing option (Score:4, Insightful)
Janeway (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"Kirk once took on a Greek god. And WON."
Re:Couple of points (Score:4, Insightful)
Picard has out witted Q, Q could turn said geek god into a amoeba with a snap of his fingers.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Couple of points (Score:4, Funny)
>Sisko hit Q
He did? Man, that must've been right before Q's shift directing air traffic over ABQ.
Re: (Score:3)
Besides Sicko became a god.
I thought he ascended and hung out in a 50's theme diner.
Re: (Score:3)
Q is Star Trek's Doctor Who. Everyone runs off with him at some point.
Re:Couple of points (Score:5, Funny)
Point 1: One-on-one, Kirk would totally kick Picard's ass...
Did you not see Generations? Picard couldn't even handle Soren without Kirk. Wasn't Soren supposed to be some old guy from the same race of "listeners" that Guinin was from? So basically Picard needed a geriatric Kirk to take on one old psychiatrist.
But Picard could order Worf to take over. Thusly, Picard is more awesome.
Because Kirk never went toe to toe with a Klingon. Didn't he toss one into molten lava in one of the movies? Additionally, the only Klingon that would serve on Kirk's bridge would be stuffed and mounted on the wall.
Also;
Kirk's Enterprise didn't have a didn't have a daycare. He left his illegitimate kids all over the galaxy
Picard went back in time and brought back Data's head. Kirk brings back two whales and picks up a blonde.
When Picard has a problem he talks with a counselor or Guinin. When Kirk has a problem, he shoots it.
You didn't see crew members teenage kids taking over Kirks Enterprise, did you?
Re:Couple of points (Score:4, Funny)
You can't count Picard in the TNG movies. There is a separate Picard in those movies. He has gone insane.
Re: (Score:3)
You didn't see crew members teenage kids taking over Kirks Enterprise, did you?
Not crew-members' kids, but children did sometimes run amok on Kirk's Enterprise:
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Are you kidding? Kirk's Enterprise was constantly one second away from being destroyed.
And yet he managed to keep it from blowing up until he decided it was time to do so. Then Starfleet had a brand new one ready for him when he returned.
Picard's Enterprise was destroyed up by two women in an antique warbird. And where was Picard when this happened? Oh yeah, having his ass saved by Kirk.
Re:Couple of points (Score:5, Insightful)
The question isn't which one would win in a fight. Star Trek isn't exactly an action series.
The question is who was the best captain. And Kirk was not. He left a trail of chaos and destruction behind him, by solving all his problems with his fists or with his dick. He was reckless, constantly endangering himself and others.
Picard was a better captain. He wasn't much of a fighter himself, generally leaving that to his crew - as a captain is supposed to. He negotiated whenever possible, but rarely hesitated to use force when necessary. He was an effective leader.
Sisko was somewhat of a balance between the two. He was much more militant, more action, than Picard, but he was also more diplomatic than Kirk. I can see someone thinking Sisko was the best captain because of this, but I don't agree with it.
Re: (Score:3)
But that's what a captain is supposed to do out on the bloody frontier! You have no backup, and keeping yourself alive is what counts.
Picard, so many times, nearly got the Enterprise totalled by sticking too closely to the book. Borg bearing down on his position? Let's open a hail!
F*ck that. Kirk's approach would have saved the Federation so much trouble when dealing with the Borg.
Re:Couple of points (Score:5, Interesting)
I studied Jazz in college. Avery Brooks talks in Jazz Jive. It took me half a semester to realize I was being complimented on my Bad playing.
Re:Couple of points (Score:4, Interesting)
Now I am curious. What does Avery Brooks sound like in real life?
Re: (Score:2)
Kirk let his lady love die - and prevented McCoy from doing saving her - because to save her would've been a dereliction of duty. 'Nuff said.
Re:Cisco - I wore a red Trek shirt today. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Its Kirk of course (Score:5, Informative)
it wasn't social comment or ethnic balance in the driving seat (or captains chair?)
Yes it was, per Roddenberry himself. He intended for the show to attack heated and divisive social policies. In a time when Russia and Asia were the enemy, you had a Russian and an Asian on the bridge. When segregation was rampant, you had a black WOMAN on the bridge. The original series tackled racial and social issues of it's time. Missions included Nazis, Communists, Socialists and many others. Kirk and Uhura shared the FIRST on screen interracial kiss.
Re: (Score:3)
Which Captain has the sweetest dance moves?
Which Captain has his(her) own clothing line?
Which Captain would be the ideal choice to run Jurassic Park?
Re:Aarrgghh!! (Score:5, Insightful)
I really liked Picard but Sisko has the best character development over all the others combined and he felt like more of a real person than any of the others did.
DS9 was a fucking soap opera... not valid sci fi.
That would be relevant if it set DS9 apart from the rest of Star Trek.
Underrating DS9: Plot and Character (Score:5, Insightful)
I used to dislike DS9 as well. When it ran on television, I had the hardest time keeping track of it because it had an awful time-slot (Saturday afternoon/evening) and the exact time would change. A few years ago I watched the whole series in sequence, however, and I now appreciate it as a story more than the others.
I think the element people miss when they compare DS9 to TOS or TNG is the difference in the way the story is structured. TOS and TNG are highly episodic. In TNG a story arc sometimes spans more than one or two episodes, but rarely. In both series, the captain (or another character who will be the main protagonist of the episode) is presented with some challenge that needs to be solved. The character will then develop a solution appropriate to that character: Kirk, fight it; Picard, negotiate with it until it causes its own demise; Spok, out-reason it; Data, reverse its polarity; Bones, cure it with a highly emotional bedside manner; Riker, fuck it; Geordi, reroute its EPS conduits; anyone in Voyager as a solution to any problem, use the deflector shield; etc.
Because of the episodic nature of the shows, anyone can pick up at any point and follow along reasonably well. Even if you watch them out of order, only a little confusion will result. ("Why has Worf been replaced by this Tasha Yar character? Her growl and scowl doesn't even come close.") This is intentional and designed for the sort of casual television audience that might occasional catch an episode of a primetime Sci-Fi on NBC. Yet, to maintain this episodic quality the series has to be character driven rather than plot driven. Sure, an individual episode will have a plot, but the series as a whole is a setting with very little plot. In each episode it is largely the quality of the characters that determine outcomes.
This contrasts sharply with DS9. Once the series gets up and running (I'll grant, season one is kind of a drag), the arc of a series long plot begins to become apparent. The show starts with pretty weak characters but it can and should do so. In TOS and TNG characters remain static types (Kirk is always Kirk, Spok is always Spok, Picard is always Picard--excepting batshit crazy movie Picard). Where it otherwise, the episodic quality of the series would cause it to be incoherent since the fixed qualities of the character maintain the show's cohesion. But in DS9 the larger arc of the story is the fixed frame of reference (much like the station itself). Within this arc, the characters may grow and develop. Sisko, Bashir, O'Brian, Quark, Garak, Dukat, and Damar, many of whom start out quite boring, are very different characters by the end of the series. Sure, they maintain some constant personality traits, but they develop in ways no TOS or TNG character does.
I think DS9 is often underrated because viewers miss how different a show it is. In the Poetics, Aristotle said there were several different categories that make a drama, any of which can determine the quality of the drama as a whole. A drama may be focused on spectacle, like a Michael Bay movie. It may be focused on character, like the early seasons of SG1. It may also be focused on plot, as I would argue BSG is. In TOS and TNG the characters shape the plot; in DS9 the plot shapes the characters. Only when someone understands this may he appreciate Sisko or DS9.