DVD Review HTF REVIEW: Star Trek Deep Space Nine - Season 7 (Highly Recommended) (1 Viewer)

[Lee Jamilkowski]

If nothing else, season 7 is worth it for the nice ending to "Badda-Bing, Badda-Bang"... the duet of The Best is Yet to Come between Vic and Ben Sisko
.

 

[Andrew Bunk]

I found some of the early to middle episodes of Season 7 a bit slow, but for the most part I still loved the season. I think 6 was strong throughout.

Just finished the set last night-it was nice to have the last 10 episodes so directly linked.

Question for anyone that has also watched the special features.

In the segment that showed the Wrap Party apparently covered by E!, did anyone else notice that Colm Meany wasn't in any of the shots of the party? Every one else seemed to be there except him, even Terry Farrell. Am I reading too much into this or was there a reason?

 

[Mikel_Cooperman]

I thought the 7th season was pretty decent and boy did we get some great battle scenes but I didnt care for the new Dax very much.
I havent bought any of the seasons because they are just toooo damn expensive.
With all the Trek that Paramount is releasing, couldnt they have lowered the list to something like $60.00?
Do they think we have just tons of money lying around that we can spend every 2-3 months?
When I bought TNG I had to really splurge but I cant do that anymore since I bought a house.
I really think they would sell more if they werent so greedy.

 

[Sven Lorenz]

Colm Meaney was always the most busy of the actors - according to imdb.com he was in four movies/TV movies in 1999 so he was probably just working.

I was hoping for one of the Section 31 files to be a little reel of Nana Visitor messing up take after take of the final scene by starting to cry. I read a lot of funny things about that - when she didn't start to cry during one take everybody started laughing because they all expected her to start again.

The one thing about the extras that made me almost sick were those interviews with Rick Berman where he continued to say "We did this...", "We did that...", "I'm so proud of..." ...

Anybody who has read some of the interviews that the writers have given since the show is over knows that Berman hated DS9 from the beginning and that they had to fight for every little thing.

You can take every single aspect that made DS9 so great and find an interview where someone of the real producers/writers tells you that Berman was against it.

He even says that they would've needed another five episodes for the final arc - Ira Behr has said how he had to fight with Berman to even get the ten episodes - Berman wanted a single two-hour-episode.

Ron Moore just gave an interview the other day where he said that everyone wanted to go on and do another season but Berman forced them to end the show so that his precious Voyager could be the only Start Trek show on TV.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

When is season 8 coming!!!

February - they just call it "Voyager".

My biggest problems with Season Seven: Ezri sucked and we saw way too much of her. Also, far too much Vic Fontaine, one of the lamest Trek characters ever seen...

 

[Tony Whalen]

Sorry Colin... I loved Vic. And Lee, you got that right! That duet was awesome!

I know Vic was one of those love/hate characters... but being a Vegas/RatPack fan, I couldn't help but enjoy him. I even managed to find a copy of James Darren's CD last time I was in ... coincidence? ... Vegas.

Yah... Berman jumping in and beaming about how great this was, and how "we" did that and such... annoying. ESPECIALLY after reading that Ron Moore interview.

 

[Frank@N]

Since all sets are now released, I was wondering if someone could speak to which seasons are 'essential'.

I saw them all on TV, but that was along time ago.

I was recently elated when I found a store selling four Seasons (3-6) used for $240 + tax.

Getting Season 7 seems almost inevitable, although I didn't care for the new Trill-host either.

I'm considering skipping Season 1 (it was short) and Season 2 (pre-Dominion and pre-Worf).

 

[Frank@N]

For what it's worth, I really prefer the DS9 packaging and disc art to that of the STTNG sets.

 

[Dave Scarpa]

Oh come on Ezri is such a cutey ! Reason Why I watch Dead Zone Rom Moore wishes he had more episodes to wrap up things ? He could have it he did'nt interrupt the main arc with things like Take me out to the Holosuite and Badda Bing Bada Bang. Don't get me wrong they were OK eps but they felt out of place during this monumentous War. One Minute Sisko is in his office tormenting over massive Federation losses , the next he's Playing Baseball with the Vulcans in a LightHearted Romp??? And Way too many Ezri specific Eps , establishing character Development during what was going on was not the smartest thing to do.

 

[Bryan Tuck]

Yah... Berman jumping in and beaming about how great this was, and how "we" did that and such... annoying. ESPECIALLY after reading that Ron Moore interview.

Would anyone happen to have a link to this interview? Or any of the other interviews where the writers talk about this? I always figured Berman had little to do with what made DS9 great, but I'd be interested in reading about the specifics.

 

[Sven Lorenz]

http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/44...html?fromint=1

 

[Frank@N]

That was an amazing interview.

Hard to believe that RM was mixed up in the BG remake nightmare though...

 

[Bryan Tuck]

Thanks for the link, Sven. Fascinating read.

Glad to know he and Braga have been able to patch things up. I've been quite critical of Braga in the past, and I still think he may not have a clear understanding of why people love Star Trek so much. However, after reading that interview, I'm beginning to think that the current staleness of the Trek franchise really is mostly because of Berman.

But if he really has been talking to Ira Behr about Enterprise as they suggest in that interview, maybe he's starting to come around. I guess we'll see.

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Tony Whalen wrote (post #27):

It's not just the character of Vic Fontane that's the problem, it's the way the stories with the holodeck, in gerneral, and him, in particular, trivialize the whole scientific concept and reduce it to just another gimmick to tell more dreary, run-of-the-mill earthbound stories of Bond-era Soviet-style spy intrigue ("Doctor Bashir, I Presume?"), Vegas racketeering ("Badda-Bing, Badda-Bang"), Irish villages ("Fair Haven", "Spirit Folk"), Viking mythology ("Heroes and Demons"), Holmesian riffs ("Elementary, Dear Data", "Ship in a Bottle"), and the like.

Like the Voyager's Doctor, Vic Fontane was used to water down the concept of "holographic entity" and it eradicates whatever might make "holographic life" unique unto itself. This was DS 9's equivalent of time-travel or Earth-parallel stories of other series (which I've always pretty much disliked).

When supposedly nonhuman characters (aliens, androids, holoprojections, or others) become "just plain folks", with just plain ol' everyday problems, the whole reason for including them in the first place disappears for me. Jeez, the writers got lazy(-er?) that week. This ain't Ozzie and Harriet, y'know.

P.S.: Some of Frank Sinatra's best stuff is fine listening at times, but NOT during a science fiction program.

 

[John_Berger]

P.S.: Some of Frank Sinatra's best stuff is fine listening at times, but NOT during a science fiction program.

Then I assume by that logic that you found absolutely nothing of interest in Joe Piscopo's hysterical (IMO) role in "The Outrageous Okana" since he was a 20th century comedian.

Personally, I take the references to the 20th century two ways.

First, it helps to reduce the "fiction" aspect by drawing us 20th century viewers more into the story by bringing in characters and ideas that we can all associate with. Your mileage might very greatly on that one, particularly with the argument that it's science fiction. I think many people will agree that seeing a commonality with the way things are now help to draw you into a story that is based in another time and place.

Secondly, I find it a wonderful gesture that many things from this century survive to be admired and enjoyed 400 years from now. It certainly is a refreshing change of pace from so many sci-fi shows that do nothing but show humans living in apocalyptic, near-medieval conditions among destoryed buildings where records of the past were obliterated and we're all a bunch of vermin just barely able to survive.

It's whole idea that 20th century humanity actually got past the extremist nay-sayers in this world and provided a positive historical significance to the future that I find appealing about the 20th century "flashbacks".

 

[Jodee]

I agree, and the fact that Star Trek characters are usually referring to the 20th century as a time of humans being somewhat barbaric, it is nice to see that they at least revere our popular culture.

I was thinking about this today. That humans in the time of Star Trek certainly have evolved in their behavior. Can you imagine if WE had access to holo-decks and replicators? We'd spend all our spare time having holo-sex with movie stars and stuffing our faces at every whim. Those people on Star Trek have SOME discipline! I'm surprised they get any work done and aren't obese.

 

[Nicodemus]

Bryan Tuck wrote:

I've been quite critical of Braga in the past, and I still think he may not have a clear understanding of why people love Star Trek so much. However, after reading that interview, I'm beginning to think that the current staleness of the Trek franchise really is mostly because of Berman.

I've been hearing criticism against Braga quite a lot and almost started believing in them myself. Whatever the situation with Enterprise is, imo Braga wrote some of the very best episodes of TNG: Reunion, Cause and Effect, Birthright part I, Timescape and Frame of Mind among few others. So I'd be willing to believe it's Mr. Berman who's destroying the franchise.

But yes, excellent reading that RM interview. He's quite candid and has some interesting to tell.

 

[Rex Bachmann]

(post #35):

Your "reasoning" is testimony to issues I've had with Star Trek and other popular "sci-fi" shows for some time now; basically the pandering of Hollywood producers to the desire, real and/or perceived, of the consuming masses to keep themselves at all times in their "comfort zones"

http://hometheaterforum.com/htforum/showthread.php?&postid=614720#post614720, with the self-satisfied familiarity of the "here-and-now" projected to "then and there".

The very point of science fiction, for me, is to explore the strange and the unfamiliar, not to reässure the audience/readership that everything is "right" with the world (cosmos) and will always be so. I look for a degree of realism that transcends the tidy and the cozy. Nonsense about the future that assures the viewer/reader that today's elites, tastes, life conditions will always be in place constitutes instant, unearned validation for the status quo and that leaves me cold. I no more believe, for example, that people 500 years in the future, even assuming cultural and technological continuity (which is a BIG assumption, indeed), will be connoisseurs of Elvis or the Beatles than most people in the "Western world" today are connoisseurs of harpsichord music or the minuet. ("This, too, shall pass.") So, when I hear Broadway tunes or even classical music in Star Trek, I receive this unreal feeling of how tired and uninspired the writers and technical people have been that week at "imagining" the future. In my opinion, any belief that the same old same-old (SOSO) will always prevail is wishful thinking as well as outright delusion on the part of the believer.

My feeling has always been that, if "comfort" and "familiarity" (i.e., reässurance) are what viewers are looking for, science fiction is not the right genre for them. I see no reason to change.

Finally, "logic" has nothing to do with any of this. It's a matter of emphasis and personal taste.

 

[Scott Kimball]

Unfortunately, Rex, hard SF doesn't work on television. It is a niche genre. In recent years, the first season of SeaQuest DSV tried to do things right (to a degree), as far as SF goes (except for the whole Lucas character - had to appeal to the kids). The ratings were poor and they revamped the show for the masses in the second season. They ruined a decent show.

Even better, Earth2 was also interesting SF that never got off the ground.

The Masses who watch TV don't want to be taken out of their "comfort zones." It's unfortunate. There are also far too few films that qualify as true SF. SF lovers have to accept that, in order to get their fix, they need to read a book.

I accept Star Trek for what it is - and I loved the Vic character. I also liked the Moriarty character in TNG. Both were strong characters, and their unusual self-awareness gave the regular characters some interesting moments.

Finally, as for listening to old music... there is a difference between Trek characters listening to 20th century music and us listening to 17th century music. 99.9% of music from the 17th century is lost to us. We know of some of the instruments, but the music itself didn't survive. It wasn't until standardization of writing music, and popular performances in the late 18th and early 19th century (Beethoven, Schubert, Paganini) that music became a sustainable phenomenon. Millions of people around the world today still listen to works by these composers.

It is not at all a strecth, considering the recording technologies of the 20th century, and the storage and retrieval technologies of today and the future, that people in the 23rd century will still enjoy the music of the 20th century. I mean, after all... I have some Schubert, Beethoven and Wagner on my iPod...

-Scott

 

[Tony Whalen]

Scott beat me to it. I hear what you are saying Rex, but Scott nailed it. Hard SF is too much of a niche to work right. Hell, I enjoy reading hard SF myself, but I can see why it wouldn't generate great ratings on television.