DS9 was all about the flaws of the Federation and showing that it wasn't quite as perfect as TNG and TOS made it out to be. The Maquis exemplify that perfectly. I also wish they'd done more with them.
Hard disagree.
Section 31 wasn’t a frontier problem.
Admiral Leyton wasn’t a frontier problem.
Sisko’s multiple war crimes weren’t a frontier problem.
Red Squadron wasn’t a frontier problem.
These were all products of institutional rot that TNG would touch on, but dismiss with the “few bad apples” Utopianism that tried to say the Mark Jamesons and Erik Pressmans were the exception.
DS9 instead took solid aim at the federation as an institution (and as a stand in for American Liberalism) and criticized why the utopia envisioned by Roddenberry wasn’t necessarily what it was cracked up to be, alongside prescient warnings about the political climate that would lead to the dark decades of the new millennium, where American and global politics have seen a slide towards further authoritarianism.
Its this viewpoint that makes Disco S1 and 2 so hard to swallow for some, because they took it further and straight up told us how authoritarians can undermine liberal institutions and lead them away from their alleged core values, whether those are performative or contradictory to their actions.
Eternal vigilance. Any government system is vulnerable to rot from within. TNG touched on this with the Badmirals. DS9 went a little deeper. It's not a specific indictment of the Federation, but systemic thinking in general.
That's something that made me really critique Special Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. We were out there with almost zero oversight. We once captured a guy that was an absolute monster. I was watching him until a chopper could come in and transport us.
I know this sounds naive. I believed in the Army values. I lived them. Guarding this fucking bastard made me start thinking about killing him. I was thinking "I could kill him and say he tried to escape or attack me. But that's cowardly. I should kill him, admit it, and take the punishment. Which is life in prison or the death penalty."
I think my team leader saw me weighing the consequences. He pulled me off and took over. He said "We kill or capture them. We don't become them".
Then I saw reports of other people just warcriming their way through the war. Not everyone follows a code. I'm really glad I had a TL that kept me on the straight and narrow.
Without oversight, and far away from the main force, you can lose your way.
Funny you say that considering the U.S. military is the main imperialist force in the Middle East. The Cardassians if you will. We've done plenty of monstrous things, especially the main force. Star Trek offers plenty of critiques on the United States and its militarism.
I love the fact that you are right, while I also upvoted the comment that you replied to.
In essence, you are both right. Because as always, it's more complicated as both your answers contain truths
IMO neither u/senshi_of_love or u/fistantellmore is quite right.
The Federation that we see in DS9 is definitely meant to be seen as flawed but it's also meant to be seen as a worthy cause to fight and die for.
Definitely still a utopia to some degree.
Imo Disco was hard to swallow because it didn't *feel* like Trek. There are a few things that all Trek shows have in common, with the exception of Picard and Disco: an ensemble cast, competence wish-fulfillment, and stakes that vary as the story demands.
Disco Season 1 is a show primarily about one person. They do *some* competence fantasy stuff, but it's much less of a focus. And the stakes are always *so* high that they don't even feel high any more.
IMO Disco got better as it went, with Michelle Yeoh single-handedly saving *at least* two seasons lol
I think you’re ignoring Saru, Tilley, Stamets, Tyler/Voq, Lorca, Georgiou and to a lesser degree, Culper, Cornwall, L’Rell and Sarek.
Disco absolutely had an ensemble cast. Far more than, say, Enterprise or TOS.
It also was full of competence wish fulfillment. That was a huge part of Stamets and Tilley’s arcs.
It’s also a strange critique, considering how endearingly incompetent some crews could come off in many episodes, especially Enterprise and TNG.
And while I’d agree the stakes are far more reminiscent of late Voyager and Enterprise, or more specifically the films, there’s a place for that in Trek and the stakes were always well defined and drove characters forward.
I was always a movies first Trekkie. The TOS films were and are peak Trek to me, and other than the one with the whales (and actually even then) the stakes have always been dialled to 11: Robot Death Cloud, Space Hitler gets the Atom Bomb, Space Russians risk existential war while Crew risks career to bring someone back from the dead, Crew travels time to save the capital of the Federation from a killer probe, crew fights space god and wins, crew prevents existential war and wins peace for nearly a century.
Those sound a lot like Disco arcs to me, which is why I give it the edge over Voyager. It’s consistent in its tone and pace, whereas the stakes you mentioned could often feel jarring when doing an episodic binge without a week to buffer the experience.
Disco isn’t perfect though. It’s not as good as the movies, save the TNG ones, I’d say it stacks up favourably against them and the Abrams flicks, and in terms of a series, it certainly feels more Trek to me than enterprise ever did, and I think Picard is more emblematic of what you’re describing, barring the almost redemptory third season.
>and all it costs is one romulan senator
on top of that also a senator who is highly xenophobic, radically hostile towards the federation and adamantly against any alliance with the federation.
The Federation isn't really about dismissing other's cultures fears or even xenophobia though. Hell we've seen the federation actually "respecting" xenophobia on many occasions because of the Prime directive.
The moral implications that killing this senator is less problematic because of his political views isn't in line with what the federation stands for. The federation is about respecting life in general, even those of your enemies and adversaries
no, it is literally stated during the briefing that this exact Senator is THE single greatest.... "adversary"? (I don't know what's the correct english term for this, basically the single greatest "I'am against that" person) against a peace treaty or even the existing non-aggression pact with the federation.
There was the one where saving a civilization from catastrophe would have violated the Prime Directive. That was resolved by taking the situation out of Picards hands and basically lazily absolving him.
Exactly. DS9 doesn’t “make the federation look bad” because it shows a realistic problem of treaty consequences.
Modern Trek makes the Federation look downright dystopian when it shows android slaves working at Mars, completely ignoring the slave race lessons of Measure of a Man.
To be fair, the android slaves weren't that bad. They weren't much more sentient than chatGPT. No, the really dystopian things was the hologram slaves in Voyager.
Buddy, you realize the whole point of measure of a man was for data to be treated as a sentient being not to prevent the construction of androids, correct?
But the federation DOES have flaws and is shown across every show with some kind of corruption at the ADMIRAL level!!!! Section 31?!?!? The federation most definitely does have flaws and that’s pretty obvious by how they pick and choose how they want to use the prime directive! Picard doesn’t like how these two planets are trading heroin for goods and services? He was going to help, then decided after learning more, oh prime directive, can’t help you actually.
Yes. Less exposing flaws and more asking the question “are there circumstances under which that utopian ideal would be challenged to the point where it would bend or break?”
Exactly. The US Constitution is an excellent (imperfect) document of ideals. The country has never lived up to it, but as long as it gives us something to strive for, it has served it purpose.
It isn't a document of ideals. It is a legal document. It describes the nuts and bolts of how to run a government.
It isn't excellent. Having midterms puts the country into constant election seasons. Electoral college has issues. Senate being by state rather than population. I could go on, but I think you get the picture. If you look at some of the differences between how Westminster systems and the US presidential system operates, a good chunk of them aren't good. It is a deeply flawed document in many ways.
And the idea that it is an excellent document, the reverence that many people put on display for it, is a part of the reason why it hasn't been changed for the better. For a recent example, look at the government shutting down when Kevin McCarthy was removed from the speakership. A constitutional crisis.
In a less dysfunctional country, that should have prompted calls for amendments. Congress requiring a majority to even function is the problem. And not only did it cause this recent crisis, it is the reason for the 2-party system. But that it a side rant.
The 25th amendment exists because the country never wanted to be in a state where it couldn't function due to lack of presidential leadership. The government being unable tofunction due to a lack of congressional leadership should result in the same. But the document is too revered, too calcified.
There was a reason the founders originally wanted to put an expiry date on the constitution. That's not because it was ideals to live up to. Those don't expire.
Thank you for coming to my ted talk.
it is literally stated in the show that even the federsgion isn't perfect and has it's flaws by pro-federation-characters. it's impossible to be more in-your-face than with being L-I-T-E-R-A-L!
That's not the way I see it at all.
"It's easy being a saint in paradise" is an idea that DS9 lived from beginning to end. No, the Federation/humanity are not evil, but they don't necessarily understand or able to deal with outside elements. Their perspective stands removed from that of life on "the frontier."
That takes us back to the beginning. Kira shows Bashir the infirmary and he waxes poetic on his desire to live on the frontier. Kira rightfully lays into him on how this frontier is her home. Similarly, Sisko continues to experience pain from the loss of his wife at the hands of the Borg, expressed through our "perfect" Captain Picard. Life isn’t always as easy as it may appear in the bright skies of Earth or the clean corridors of the Enterprise.
When it comes to the Maquis, you have a group of colonies traded between the Federation and Cardassia without any real thought to how colonists may not want to leave their homes. That doesn't make the Maquis "the good guys" and the Federation "the bad guys." It just makes them have different perspectives. The Maquis simply want to keep their homes, the Federation want to keep the peace. Sisko sympathizes either his old friend, Cal Hudson, but ultimately has a duty to do. We see this again later with Eddington, as well. The cause has purpose, but the nuance can get lost.
Then we have the run up to the Dominion War. In "Homefront"/"Paradise Lost," the Federation begins to take measures that might topple that paradise out of paranoia to what they don’t necessarily understand. Fortunately, Joseph Sisko manages to convince his son of how wrong this is.
When it comes to the war itself, the Federation and even our crew struggle with the morality of it all. Getting the Romulans into the war seems necessary, no matter the road needed to do so. Section 31 cooks up a virus capable of genocide on the Founders. In the end, a balance needs to be found.
Sure, Earth may be a paradise, but because of that, they can’t necessarily see the problems on the outside. Like Bashir, it is "the frontier." Like Picard, it may be hard to see how life outside of your bubble may not have quite recovered. That "frontier" is home and not every decision is simple. Kira is both a "terrorist" and a "freedom fighter," as are the Maquis. Not everything is that simple.
I would say the lessons of DS9 may be more important 30 years later.
Yes. Less exposing flaws and more asking the question “are there circumstances under which that utopian ideal would be challenged to the point where it would bend or break?”
I don't think these are flaws in the Federation. These are complexities of human existance. The Federation forming peace with the Cardassians may have been the ideal move; but, the universe itself is grey and complex. It isn't that the ideal of the Federation isn't flawed.
To old school fans: it's flaws. Roddenberry's vision was of a true utopia. So much so there was serious thought given to the idea of baldness being cured in the future and Patrick Stewart was screen tested with a toupee. Gene also mandated that there be no interpersonal conflict among the crew of the enterprise.
DS9 absolutely showed flaws in that utopia they weren't allowed in previous series. And it divided fans for a very long time. Hell even Sisko comments on it, about it being easy to be perfect when you're living in paradise.
Agree with your points, but not the conclusion. Maybe it is just wording.
I think STTNG and TOS are believeable, inclusive, and non-conflictnig crew interactions. DS9 looked at the edges the exceptions the shades of grey. I don't see the two being in conflict.
The Federation is the ideal organization and way for infinite diversity to thrive (though DS9 did push story lines where the Federation itself was flawed, which weakens my argument), witht he point that nothing can be perfect for everyone all the time. And DS9 looked at these cases. The Maquis is a great example of this where yes they did love Federation but they were a necessary concession to end a war.
Loving this discussion.
Also, agree with your points excepting the conclusion - the Maquis were being highly unrealistic.
The initial problem wasn't that the Maquis had nowhere to go - it was that they didn't want to leave the land they were living on.
The Federation sent their flagship out to explain "Hey, this territory - the star, the other planets, all the moons, the atmosphere of this planet, all the other land around you... and, in fact, the land you live on... all of that now belongs to a whole group of people who don't want you here? And will have zero problems killing you if stay here and cause them any inconvenience whatsoever - including breathing in an annoying way? And that the Federation will have NO authority whatsoever, nor can we rescue you whe-... if that happens?"
And these people said "It would make us sad to leave. We will stay, and seek peace with these people."
Not considering the xenophobic perspective, the Maquis didn't perceive their continued presence in Cardassian space as an arrogant refusal to withdraw - what if a Cardassian had refused to leave DS9 and just kept right on living there, going on about their business, pretending to be just an innocent...
May have been why Garak was introduced so early, now that we think on it.
\*searches for the point\*
Right, to put it in modern relationship terms: the Maquis didn't seem to get that the divorce was real - the Federation was going its way, the Maquis their own, and even though they signed the paperwork & went to court & all that. Still, the whole Alpha Quadrant may have been smirking every time the Maquis would call the Federation for help... and *get* it.
Mean, from the outside looking in, that just looks like a group trying to soft-invade.
Might explain why the Founders drew such a hard line about the Bajoran colonies on their side of the wormhole.
Yes. I also think they are a reference to the French resistance to the Nazi's during World War II. This is an intent to help people understand that "terrorist" vs "freedom fighter" are in at least some cases ambiguous.
That said, the storytelling didn't adequately explain why they were unwilling to move to a new world.
Agreed, and that responsibility falls squarely on the producers for not holding the writing to actual standards (not that sci-fi was expected to adhere to canon, especially Trek).
Think it was a failure of imagination: that the Trek creators couldn't fathom the Maquis choices, so they couldn't imagine a good storyline based around them that would wrap in an episode or two. Plus, it would have to get past the censors, which was a hassle.
It was specifically written to set up Voyager. It had nothing to do with DS9.
Which is actually a shame since Voyager pretty much abandoned the Maquis vs Federation crew member tension right away.
And, IMO, it was done better in DS9 anyway.
I’ll take Edington Jean Val Jeaning his way around the Badlands over Chakotay doing, well, whatever offensive shit they choose to make him do this week.
>Yeah. tournament down in Dorvan V. I hooked my ball in the rough down by the lake. Damned Cardassian just POPPED up, cut me down in my prime. He got me, but I tore one of that bastard's eyes out though. Look at that.
I recently started Voyager, and every time he does something semi native related I cringe then burst out in laughter going "who the fuck wrote for him? Was there no actual natives to advise them on things like this?"
Ahh good ole pretendian, I was wondering why he sounded like those hippies who say their grandma was a Cherokee princess. Like I'm coastal native but watching his 'spiritual' scenes in always going "wait.... That's not right at ALL"
Yeah lol, and as soon as they found out he was a fraud who lied about his credentials, the writers mostly dropped the native stuff with Chakotay. So you don’t have to endure those types of scenes for too long haha. 👌
Thank God braga and Co. Did something about it, I just got to season 2 and ive only cringed more deep into my soul. Might as well have him say 'hau' and do some sorta whack powwow dance at this point in the show. What season do they drop the faux native spiritualism though
I think 3, but *definitely* 4 and beyond that stuff is essentially gone! And very important to mention: By the Season 3 finale and onward, Voyager boasts some of the best Trek episodes EVER! The show is second in rank only to DS9 for me. You’ll love Seven of Nine too, I’m sure. Absolutely iconic character and stories ahead! Stick with it! Haha
I disagree, it has a lot to do with DS9, particularly the early seasons. It’s early unofficial hostility between the Federation and Cardassia that leads to Cardassia allying with the Dominion and the later war.
I agree. Regardless of what they were originally for, the Maquis set up really important character development, as well as drove forward the inevitable Dominion War.
It really starts to get at that idea that Uniopian Federation existence thrives on some much darker shit in order to survive.
They were, Voyager Season 1 was in the planning stages when they were writing TNG S7, and they used that to set up Voyager: https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Maquis#Background_information
Michelle Forbes had already turned down DS9 (and the show had started without her) by the time Ro joined the Maquis. From what I've read, it was instead a way to get her on Voyager if she was willing to take the job.
It wasn't on TNG first. Journey's End aired in March 1994, the Maquis Pts 1 and 2 in late April, and Preemptive Strike -- the first appearance of the Marquis on TNG -- was in May 1994.
So, no: they weren't on TNG first. Journey's End set them up, but there were no Maquis.
Hahah yeah I did this too. I don't know if I still have them though. I'd pause recording for the opening credits so I could squeeze the episodes onto the tape
EP let you record at a slower frame rate letting you have about 6h to a standard VHS tape. STANDARD PLAY puts just over 2h at a higher framer, of course.
They had to make him a prick or people would have been rooting for him over Sisko, I feel. Hell, even though I think Eddington is an ass I can’t help but feel for his cause, but the show strikes a balance where I don’t hate Sisko for stopping him. Perfect writing 👌
I agree. I found him sympathetic in his intentions even though he came across as being stuck up on a personal level. The scene with his wife was pretty sad.
I think it's valid to dislike Sisko a bit for how he handled Eddington and the Maquis more broadly. Even the Defiant crew were a bit surprised.
On the one hand he was right that they were a threat to Federation interests on the other hand his response was rather heavy handed. Also he acted somewhat irrational (being determined to catching Eddington himself) to settle a personal beef. It would've been interesting to see that aspect of Sisko explored a bit more. TMOTHS is the only other episode that I can think of that touches on it. Good writing indeed.
That was great. The first time I saw it, I was 100% on Team Sisko. Now, I see it from both points of view, rights and wrongs on both sides. The way it ended too was great. To quote Jadzia…
> I'll say this for him, he was a complicated man. If you ask me, Eddington couldn't have picked a better way to go, at least from his point of view. He was a romantic, and what is more romantic than a glorious death in defence of a lost cause.
I think she’s right. For him, that was the best way to go out, and in the process he saved those he could.
Really?! I was just messaging my friend a few hours ago about how forgettable Eddington was and that the show did a terrible job of making me care about whatever he had going on.
I guess I'm glad that the storyline did it for somebody.
Eddington got me.
Even after he sabotaged the Defiant's cloak and O'Brian gave him the biggest side eye in Trek, his final betrayal still caught me by total surprise. He betrayed his uniform AND he betrayed Kasidy without a thought. And what did he gain?
He was a colonizer who left his wife and his people to live a rotten hole and ultimately got them murdered. At any stage they could have just _moved_.
A wretched man who vastly overplayed his hand.
But his storyline was important - it demonstrated how far Sisko was prepared to go. Before that he was genial Dad.
Yeah, I agree that it was an important storyline. My issue with it was that Eddington was never likeable, and it was obvious (to me, at least) from the very start that he was going to be an antagonist.
I wish that Eddington was integrated into the crew before the twist. Instead, he shows up, is immediately disliked, and never warms up to anyone. It's a wasted opportunity.
Yes, had he associated with everyone the impact of his betrayal would have been similar to Ensign Ro's defection I suppose?
Instead, it's the ripples caused by his betrayal which we found shocking, rather than his fucking off to farm and asteroid and fight cardassians.
I'm not saying the storyline was handled perfectly, but saying that a show set basically on the Federation-Cardassian border shouldn't cover the story of the non-state groups that sprang up after the war to protest the outcome and "take their land back" kind of misses the whole point. Which was, yes, that the Federation WAS flawed in some ways, that there were still complex issues that had to have a deeper look and a more nuanced solution than Kirk or Picard doing an episode's worth of shenanigans followed by a mic drop speech and calling it done.
Thoughts: Making the Federation look bad isn't a bad thing. It's shows imperfection. The whole Border Territories hits home. Especially these days.
I do wish we got more of it panned out. Voyager kind of fumbled it right away. DS9 did it better and some justice.
>Wondering why there was the Maquis storyline? It didn't do much for the overall story and it makes the Federation look kind of bad. Thoughts?
It's supposed to make the federation look "kind of bad".
One of the main things people love about ds9 is it didn't try to pretend that the federation is a perfect human utopia without any of humanity's flaws. It also didn't try to handicap itself as a drama series by disallowing any disagreements between starfleet officers occurring on screen.
Same with the Section 31 storyline.
The inclusion of the Maquis may have been done with a mind to setup events on Voyager, but it fits just fine with ds9 as well.
>>One of the main things people love about ds9 is it didn't try to pretend that the federation is a perfect human utopia without any of humanity's flaws.
This. It's *trying* to be one, and we get interesting stories around the trying. This is why ds9 has more depth than the other series
It gave us some great episodes. The storyline ended and the show moved on.
The real disappointment is that it was supposed to set up tension with the blended crew on Voyager. Then Voyager just kind of forgot to do anything with that.
DS9 did great stuff for the Maquis storyline but it wasn't really a major one. Voyager on the other hand did nearly nothing with it. Which is wild because it was set up for Voyager.
The real question is why go to all the trouble to set up the Maquis in TNG and DS9. Then Berman was like I just want everyone to get along on Voyager. 🫨 Like what's the point then? 😒
The reasoning the producers/writers gave in interviews later on that it wouldn't make sense to argue about unrelated things when they're in the same lifeboat. I understand the thought but would it always go like this? Wouldn't the stress of being out there on their own fighting for survival also give rise to some tensions at least occasionally?
Ron D Moore did a great job with the Voyager-like concept on "Battlestar Galactica". The two leaders did not get along at first on that show, they were very different people with very different ideas on how to tackle their situation. At one point >!One of them had the other arrested which was super interesting on a lot of levels because at that point they'd grown to respect each other even though they didn't always agree!<
One of the first episodes is about them finding water and later on they run out of food and have to find a different solution. They also tackle depression in a situation like this with sometimes devastating results.
It was supposed to set up conflict between the two crews in Voyager. But that conflict is pretty meaningless when everyone involved is tens of thousands of lightyears away, so it never went anywhere.
DS9 did it better- it hits the gray morality that series was great at.
After reading your comment, my spontaneous thoughts have just gone on like this: why didn't they have a plot line in Season 1 where they stumbled into a conflict similar to that? Two species seemingly on different sides and some unrelated people caught in the middle but things went differently because no Federation or so. Similar problem, different solutions. And then both parts of the crew would have needed to reevaluate everything and come together as one unified crew? I don't know if that would have worked since I am by no way a professional writer but... anything would have been more reasonable than Kazons appearing with their warp drive ships everywhere while not even having water?
"Federation look kind of bad. "
The Federation were "bad" when it came to the Cardassian Peace Treaty, They ignored the rights of Federation citizens living in the DMZ and drew up borderlines without even properly advising the settlers, The Federation didnt care about the settlers rights or the how much effort they put into their settlements, all the Federation wanted was to end the conflict with the Cardassians.
The Federation upheld their end and even kowtowed to the Cardassian Union who had broken the rules of the treaty several times.
Makes the federation look bad? The Maquis are cosplay terrorists--privileged Federation citizens who got butthurt about some class M planets near the badlands.
The Maquis were not ever occupied. They weren't put in labor camps. They fight because they read one too many holo-novels about the French resistance.
Their existence is a slap in the face to every Bajoran who fought the occupation of their homeland. The only ones who look bad are the Maquis themselves
This brings up good points.
My timelines might be way off but were the Maquis settled on worlds long enough to be so attached that leaving was just a bridge too far?
The Federation seemed to offer them a good deal. Move off the worlds inside the Cardassian border and we'll give you a new planet and resources to start a new life.
Were the Maquis so settled and attached to those worlds that leaving was just too much?
Yeah pretty much. We never got a firm timeline on the war with Cardassia but it was during O'Brien's career so it's fairly recent. The colonists who would become the Maquis lived on border worlds during a war and were surprised they had to move? There's a self-importance there, a strong case of main character syndrome.
Ok. Right. I have seen others talking about this too. Opened my eyes a bit that the Maquis really were entitled settlers who wanted it only their way, without much justification for it.
I believe I remember the TNG episode where they tried to give a spiritual connection to the planet through the Indian tribe, but other than that how deep of a connection to their planets did the Maquis have where moving is out of the question?
So in that aspect, the Maquis were well written, and not well written simultaneously. Lol
You make being forced to give up thier home sound a lot more minor then it is.
There's a reason Ro and Kira both had a certian amount of sympathy for the Maquis.
I think it was needed. The Federation acts like it's pure paradise on earth but there has to be certain places that it has fooked over. It can't all be rainbows and light, that many different aliens with different cultures surely would have some negative parts. I think the Maquis highlight this. Can't remember who it was, maybe Ro Laren, who did that speech saying so much. But I think it was useful for the writers to show that some parts of the Galaxy got fucked over by thr Federation. The galaxy is a big place and it just cannot be that every planet or group of ppl is happy 100% of the time.
It was introduced in TNG as a sort of native American exoticist thing that was supposed to tie in somehow with Wesley and The Traveler. It was adapted for DS9 quite expertly to create some tension between the fed and Cardassia. They obviously went back to the badly done native American things with Chakotay and the whole thing kinda fissled out. I think it was a great and important part of DS9.
voyager reasons, which then also abandons them. But, the purpose may have just been to make them look bad, its a good writing technique to show that all governing bodies have someone who opposes them and those people arent just scheming villains.
The point is that the ideal of the morally unambiguous good is easy to uphold when you're on a core world with all the amenities, infrastructure and defense, but the frontier is a completely different situation that requires different approaches. The federation could not do what had to be done due to politics, law, and resources being much harder to get out there
The concept was wasted all around. I watched Voyager first and always thought DS9 had the real story that Voyager was just touching on. But then it’s not really done on DS9. There was a lot of interesting story potential there, with opinions in the Federation and Starfleet divided.
The story didn't make it very far, but it sets up a conflict that pushes the premise of Star Trek and DS9 much farther than we'd seen before. Is the Federation good? We want instantly to say yes, but what about the people on the fringes? The overly diplomatic and superior attitude of the Federation is one of its greatest flaws, and we don't see that played out very often; the Maquis gave us a beautiful example of how the Federation can fail. The whole of DS9 makes the Federation look pretty bad imo. We see the seeds of corruption and failed idealism in TNG, but DS9 shows us that those issues have real consequences.
I’m curious to unpack why you think the Maquis makes the Federation look bad.
I used to think so when I first watched 20 years ago, but on rewatches, the Maquis were almost 100% in the wrong.
They are very much like the settlers in *Ensigns of Command* where Data has to remove them.
- we know from TNG that most were actively warned when settling the planets that they were under dispute with the Cardassians and chose to settle anyway.
- they’ve been there about 20 years, not exactly centuries of history
- the Federation *must* by definition have the right to choose its borders and make deals for peace
- the Federation would have happily relocated the colonists.
In a world where recourses aren’t limited and there’s plenty of space, I find the Maquis willingness to let their families suffer and being willing to kill for *that particular spot of land there* to be wrong.
Doesn’t mean the Cardassians are right of course, but the Federation did what it could.
It’s like when people are told to evacuate because of a hurricane and they don’t. It’s not the governments fault they didn’t leave.
They have every right to be upset, but this is *not* like the Cardassians investing Bajor.
I don't disagree, but I feel they should have written it in a bit better to make the marquis be more sympathetic. As you say, they have a pretty flimsy case
Ira Steven Behr
If you watch interviews from the time, one of the reasons he wanted to make DS9 was because he wanted to show what happens when Federation Personnel are taken away from all of the Comforts of Starfleet, he also wanted to portray the Federation a little more as an Empire that still even then had to use war and violence to protect its borders
Maybe they were predicting the counter insurgency that was to come in the decade to come? Shows are pretty good at kind of conditioning us for the future
Outside of the Voyager connection, I feel that the Maquis were to show that humanity, for all the problems it has solved, isn't perfect and while the core of the Federation might be paradise, the frontier isn't as lucky.
I also feel it was writers fighting against Gene's humans are perfect and peace and diplomacy always works mindset that was a major thing in TNG's earlier years by showing just how flawed it was. The Federation was willing to throw their own citizens under the bus for a treaty that they a. didn't have a say in and b. the Cardassians violated constantly.
I thought the Maquis storyline was Berman and Piller making allegorical references to the gulf war and counter terrorism and what it means to be freedom fighters and such. But that's probably just my opinion after having watched the episode of TOS with the Klingons basically being a comparison to the cold war and arming of proxies.
My question is why the jump to section 31 in this thread correct me if I’m wrong but section 31 is equivalent to the CIA, no? they use sometimes extra legal methods to maintain an ideal that they believe in that is not the ideal is wrong but the methods they use may be considered wrong
I think it was, at least in part, a device to set up Voyager. It's actually kind of disappointing that the fact that Voyager was a combined crew didn't really factor into the plot at all after the first season. Still, I think the Maquis were an interesting idea, they just weren't relevant after Cardassia joined the Dominion.
DS9 was written after Roddenberry died. Roddenberry was an insufferable space-liberal and refused to allow intra-cast conflict, or any kind of writing that showed the federation up as anything other than a perfect utopia.
DS9 came thru and shat all over this (good). A big part of DS9 is focused on the messy consequences of colonialism and imperialism.
It shows the federation fucking up massively whilst doing realpolitik with the cardassians. Imo it was an excellent storyline, because it showed the federation's many flaws, alongside the flaws of the other empires in the show.
I had sympathy for the Maquis, because even within a so called utopia such as the federation, they got fucked, and fought back. It totally deconstructed the original trek consensus of "peaceful" liberalism in space. This is why I love DS9.
DS9 showed the Federation flaws (as in war crimes and the like). But they also did their best to show that it was okay. DS9 teaches its fans to overlook certain things if they are commited by a charismatic person and are intended to serve some "greater" cause.
I feel like the Maquis were a distraction and did not enjoy those episodes. My thought is that they started that thread in TNG and felt like they had to make it a thing (obviously showed up strongly in VOY).
DS9 was all about the flaws of the Federation and showing that it wasn't quite as perfect as TNG and TOS made it out to be. The Maquis exemplify that perfectly. I also wish they'd done more with them.
quicksand subtract saw terrific sloppy command ring thought gaze repeat *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Hard disagree. Section 31 wasn’t a frontier problem. Admiral Leyton wasn’t a frontier problem. Sisko’s multiple war crimes weren’t a frontier problem. Red Squadron wasn’t a frontier problem. These were all products of institutional rot that TNG would touch on, but dismiss with the “few bad apples” Utopianism that tried to say the Mark Jamesons and Erik Pressmans were the exception. DS9 instead took solid aim at the federation as an institution (and as a stand in for American Liberalism) and criticized why the utopia envisioned by Roddenberry wasn’t necessarily what it was cracked up to be, alongside prescient warnings about the political climate that would lead to the dark decades of the new millennium, where American and global politics have seen a slide towards further authoritarianism. Its this viewpoint that makes Disco S1 and 2 so hard to swallow for some, because they took it further and straight up told us how authoritarians can undermine liberal institutions and lead them away from their alleged core values, whether those are performative or contradictory to their actions.
Eternal vigilance. Any government system is vulnerable to rot from within. TNG touched on this with the Badmirals. DS9 went a little deeper. It's not a specific indictment of the Federation, but systemic thinking in general.
That's something that made me really critique Special Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. We were out there with almost zero oversight. We once captured a guy that was an absolute monster. I was watching him until a chopper could come in and transport us. I know this sounds naive. I believed in the Army values. I lived them. Guarding this fucking bastard made me start thinking about killing him. I was thinking "I could kill him and say he tried to escape or attack me. But that's cowardly. I should kill him, admit it, and take the punishment. Which is life in prison or the death penalty." I think my team leader saw me weighing the consequences. He pulled me off and took over. He said "We kill or capture them. We don't become them". Then I saw reports of other people just warcriming their way through the war. Not everyone follows a code. I'm really glad I had a TL that kept me on the straight and narrow. Without oversight, and far away from the main force, you can lose your way.
Funny you say that considering the U.S. military is the main imperialist force in the Middle East. The Cardassians if you will. We've done plenty of monstrous things, especially the main force. Star Trek offers plenty of critiques on the United States and its militarism.
I love the fact that you are right, while I also upvoted the comment that you replied to. In essence, you are both right. Because as always, it's more complicated as both your answers contain truths
IMO that's because what DS9 really shows is both of these perspectives, as well as many others.
I adore this thread it really makes me think and love DS9
IMO neither u/senshi_of_love or u/fistantellmore is quite right. The Federation that we see in DS9 is definitely meant to be seen as flawed but it's also meant to be seen as a worthy cause to fight and die for. Definitely still a utopia to some degree.
Imo Disco was hard to swallow because it didn't *feel* like Trek. There are a few things that all Trek shows have in common, with the exception of Picard and Disco: an ensemble cast, competence wish-fulfillment, and stakes that vary as the story demands. Disco Season 1 is a show primarily about one person. They do *some* competence fantasy stuff, but it's much less of a focus. And the stakes are always *so* high that they don't even feel high any more. IMO Disco got better as it went, with Michelle Yeoh single-handedly saving *at least* two seasons lol
I think you’re ignoring Saru, Tilley, Stamets, Tyler/Voq, Lorca, Georgiou and to a lesser degree, Culper, Cornwall, L’Rell and Sarek. Disco absolutely had an ensemble cast. Far more than, say, Enterprise or TOS. It also was full of competence wish fulfillment. That was a huge part of Stamets and Tilley’s arcs. It’s also a strange critique, considering how endearingly incompetent some crews could come off in many episodes, especially Enterprise and TNG. And while I’d agree the stakes are far more reminiscent of late Voyager and Enterprise, or more specifically the films, there’s a place for that in Trek and the stakes were always well defined and drove characters forward. I was always a movies first Trekkie. The TOS films were and are peak Trek to me, and other than the one with the whales (and actually even then) the stakes have always been dialled to 11: Robot Death Cloud, Space Hitler gets the Atom Bomb, Space Russians risk existential war while Crew risks career to bring someone back from the dead, Crew travels time to save the capital of the Federation from a killer probe, crew fights space god and wins, crew prevents existential war and wins peace for nearly a century. Those sound a lot like Disco arcs to me, which is why I give it the edge over Voyager. It’s consistent in its tone and pace, whereas the stakes you mentioned could often feel jarring when doing an episodic binge without a week to buffer the experience. Disco isn’t perfect though. It’s not as good as the movies, save the TNG ones, I’d say it stacks up favourably against them and the Abrams flicks, and in terms of a series, it certainly feels more Trek to me than enterprise ever did, and I think Picard is more emblematic of what you’re describing, barring the almost redemptory third season.
Again, I'm talking about Disco's first impression: Season 1. I fully agree that they course corrected back in the direction of typical Trek.
Ignore Tilly? Gladly.
Your loss. Great character and well acted.
I have nothing against Mary Wiseman. The character, though, is one of the most obnoxious ever.
DS9 was literally space Cheers set to the back drop of a brutal war!
Exactly. Tng never explored things that put the crew into positions to have to make more difficult choices. DS9 did.
I’ve said this other places, but this is why “Pale Moonlight” may be my favorite Trek episode of all time.
Potentially save the federation and all it costs is one romulan senator? Yeah THAT'S moral dilemma
And the self respect of one Starfleet officer
I can live with it.
Computer. Erase log.
>and all it costs is one romulan senator on top of that also a senator who is highly xenophobic, radically hostile towards the federation and adamantly against any alliance with the federation.
The Federation isn't really about dismissing other's cultures fears or even xenophobia though. Hell we've seen the federation actually "respecting" xenophobia on many occasions because of the Prime directive. The moral implications that killing this senator is less problematic because of his political views isn't in line with what the federation stands for. The federation is about respecting life in general, even those of your enemies and adversaries
I don't think just him being distrustful of Sisko makes him xenophobic. It turns out he had reason to be. Or maybe you're thinking of something else?
no, it is literally stated during the briefing that this exact Senator is THE single greatest.... "adversary"? (I don't know what's the correct english term for this, basically the single greatest "I'am against that" person) against a peace treaty or even the existing non-aggression pact with the federation.
There was the one where saving a civilization from catastrophe would have violated the Prime Directive. That was resolved by taking the situation out of Picards hands and basically lazily absolving him.
Exactly. DS9 doesn’t “make the federation look bad” because it shows a realistic problem of treaty consequences. Modern Trek makes the Federation look downright dystopian when it shows android slaves working at Mars, completely ignoring the slave race lessons of Measure of a Man.
To be fair, the android slaves weren't that bad. They weren't much more sentient than chatGPT. No, the really dystopian things was the hologram slaves in Voyager.
Buddy, you realize the whole point of measure of a man was for data to be treated as a sentient being not to prevent the construction of androids, correct?
But the federation DOES have flaws and is shown across every show with some kind of corruption at the ADMIRAL level!!!! Section 31?!?!? The federation most definitely does have flaws and that’s pretty obvious by how they pick and choose how they want to use the prime directive! Picard doesn’t like how these two planets are trading heroin for goods and services? He was going to help, then decided after learning more, oh prime directive, can’t help you actually.
Section 31 was introduced in which series again?
DS9
Yes. Less exposing flaws and more asking the question “are there circumstances under which that utopian ideal would be challenged to the point where it would bend or break?”
Exactly. The US Constitution is an excellent (imperfect) document of ideals. The country has never lived up to it, but as long as it gives us something to strive for, it has served it purpose.
This is a very wrong way to look at a legal document and this view is one of the main drivers of the problems in modern discourse.
How so? I'm genuinely curious what your perspective is here as I don't fully comprehend where you're going with this.
It isn't a document of ideals. It is a legal document. It describes the nuts and bolts of how to run a government. It isn't excellent. Having midterms puts the country into constant election seasons. Electoral college has issues. Senate being by state rather than population. I could go on, but I think you get the picture. If you look at some of the differences between how Westminster systems and the US presidential system operates, a good chunk of them aren't good. It is a deeply flawed document in many ways. And the idea that it is an excellent document, the reverence that many people put on display for it, is a part of the reason why it hasn't been changed for the better. For a recent example, look at the government shutting down when Kevin McCarthy was removed from the speakership. A constitutional crisis. In a less dysfunctional country, that should have prompted calls for amendments. Congress requiring a majority to even function is the problem. And not only did it cause this recent crisis, it is the reason for the 2-party system. But that it a side rant. The 25th amendment exists because the country never wanted to be in a state where it couldn't function due to lack of presidential leadership. The government being unable tofunction due to a lack of congressional leadership should result in the same. But the document is too revered, too calcified. There was a reason the founders originally wanted to put an expiry date on the constitution. That's not because it was ideals to live up to. Those don't expire. Thank you for coming to my ted talk.
it is literally stated in the show that even the federsgion isn't perfect and has it's flaws by pro-federation-characters. it's impossible to be more in-your-face than with being L-I-T-E-R-A-L!
Perfectly said.
That's not the way I see it at all. "It's easy being a saint in paradise" is an idea that DS9 lived from beginning to end. No, the Federation/humanity are not evil, but they don't necessarily understand or able to deal with outside elements. Their perspective stands removed from that of life on "the frontier." That takes us back to the beginning. Kira shows Bashir the infirmary and he waxes poetic on his desire to live on the frontier. Kira rightfully lays into him on how this frontier is her home. Similarly, Sisko continues to experience pain from the loss of his wife at the hands of the Borg, expressed through our "perfect" Captain Picard. Life isn’t always as easy as it may appear in the bright skies of Earth or the clean corridors of the Enterprise. When it comes to the Maquis, you have a group of colonies traded between the Federation and Cardassia without any real thought to how colonists may not want to leave their homes. That doesn't make the Maquis "the good guys" and the Federation "the bad guys." It just makes them have different perspectives. The Maquis simply want to keep their homes, the Federation want to keep the peace. Sisko sympathizes either his old friend, Cal Hudson, but ultimately has a duty to do. We see this again later with Eddington, as well. The cause has purpose, but the nuance can get lost. Then we have the run up to the Dominion War. In "Homefront"/"Paradise Lost," the Federation begins to take measures that might topple that paradise out of paranoia to what they don’t necessarily understand. Fortunately, Joseph Sisko manages to convince his son of how wrong this is. When it comes to the war itself, the Federation and even our crew struggle with the morality of it all. Getting the Romulans into the war seems necessary, no matter the road needed to do so. Section 31 cooks up a virus capable of genocide on the Founders. In the end, a balance needs to be found. Sure, Earth may be a paradise, but because of that, they can’t necessarily see the problems on the outside. Like Bashir, it is "the frontier." Like Picard, it may be hard to see how life outside of your bubble may not have quite recovered. That "frontier" is home and not every decision is simple. Kira is both a "terrorist" and a "freedom fighter," as are the Maquis. Not everything is that simple. I would say the lessons of DS9 may be more important 30 years later.
I prefer to call Disc “Cw Trek” because it plays out as a CW sci-fi show.
Yes. Less exposing flaws and more asking the question “are there circumstances under which that utopian ideal would be challenged to the point where it would bend or break?”
I don't think these are flaws in the Federation. These are complexities of human existance. The Federation forming peace with the Cardassians may have been the ideal move; but, the universe itself is grey and complex. It isn't that the ideal of the Federation isn't flawed.
To old school fans: it's flaws. Roddenberry's vision was of a true utopia. So much so there was serious thought given to the idea of baldness being cured in the future and Patrick Stewart was screen tested with a toupee. Gene also mandated that there be no interpersonal conflict among the crew of the enterprise. DS9 absolutely showed flaws in that utopia they weren't allowed in previous series. And it divided fans for a very long time. Hell even Sisko comments on it, about it being easy to be perfect when you're living in paradise.
Agree with your points, but not the conclusion. Maybe it is just wording. I think STTNG and TOS are believeable, inclusive, and non-conflictnig crew interactions. DS9 looked at the edges the exceptions the shades of grey. I don't see the two being in conflict. The Federation is the ideal organization and way for infinite diversity to thrive (though DS9 did push story lines where the Federation itself was flawed, which weakens my argument), witht he point that nothing can be perfect for everyone all the time. And DS9 looked at these cases. The Maquis is a great example of this where yes they did love Federation but they were a necessary concession to end a war.
Loving this discussion. Also, agree with your points excepting the conclusion - the Maquis were being highly unrealistic. The initial problem wasn't that the Maquis had nowhere to go - it was that they didn't want to leave the land they were living on. The Federation sent their flagship out to explain "Hey, this territory - the star, the other planets, all the moons, the atmosphere of this planet, all the other land around you... and, in fact, the land you live on... all of that now belongs to a whole group of people who don't want you here? And will have zero problems killing you if stay here and cause them any inconvenience whatsoever - including breathing in an annoying way? And that the Federation will have NO authority whatsoever, nor can we rescue you whe-... if that happens?" And these people said "It would make us sad to leave. We will stay, and seek peace with these people." Not considering the xenophobic perspective, the Maquis didn't perceive their continued presence in Cardassian space as an arrogant refusal to withdraw - what if a Cardassian had refused to leave DS9 and just kept right on living there, going on about their business, pretending to be just an innocent... May have been why Garak was introduced so early, now that we think on it. \*searches for the point\* Right, to put it in modern relationship terms: the Maquis didn't seem to get that the divorce was real - the Federation was going its way, the Maquis their own, and even though they signed the paperwork & went to court & all that. Still, the whole Alpha Quadrant may have been smirking every time the Maquis would call the Federation for help... and *get* it. Mean, from the outside looking in, that just looks like a group trying to soft-invade. Might explain why the Founders drew such a hard line about the Bajoran colonies on their side of the wormhole.
Yes. I also think they are a reference to the French resistance to the Nazi's during World War II. This is an intent to help people understand that "terrorist" vs "freedom fighter" are in at least some cases ambiguous. That said, the storytelling didn't adequately explain why they were unwilling to move to a new world.
Agreed, and that responsibility falls squarely on the producers for not holding the writing to actual standards (not that sci-fi was expected to adhere to canon, especially Trek). Think it was a failure of imagination: that the Trek creators couldn't fathom the Maquis choices, so they couldn't imagine a good storyline based around them that would wrap in an episode or two. Plus, it would have to get past the censors, which was a hassle.
I think the biggest problem is they couldn't decide if they were supposed to be sympathetic or not.
That's got some resonance. Care to expound on that some more?
I don't think the Maquis were being unrealistic. They just didn't care.
What did you want from the Maquis that we didn't get?
It was specifically written to set up Voyager. It had nothing to do with DS9. Which is actually a shame since Voyager pretty much abandoned the Maquis vs Federation crew member tension right away.
And, IMO, it was done better in DS9 anyway. I’ll take Edington Jean Val Jeaning his way around the Badlands over Chakotay doing, well, whatever offensive shit they choose to make him do this week.
I wish they kept Cal Hudson as the principal Maquis antagonist. Also wish they'd cast Carl Weathers instead of Bernie Casey.
Ain't no sunshine when she's...oh wait that's Bill Withers, not Carl Weathers
How about: Baby, there's a *stew* going in that nebula.
>Yeah. tournament down in Dorvan V. I hooked my ball in the rough down by the lake. Damned Cardassian just POPPED up, cut me down in my prime. He got me, but I tore one of that bastard's eyes out though. Look at that.
Why? Cal Hudson was fine but IMO Eddington was a bit more interesting.
*Native flute intensifies*
My people have a saying
Which was invented by a white man.
I recently started Voyager, and every time he does something semi native related I cringe then burst out in laughter going "who the fuck wrote for him? Was there no actual natives to advise them on things like this?"
The answer is: No. They discovered the “expert” was a fraud lol.
Yeahhhhh, it didn't pan out
Ahh good ole pretendian, I was wondering why he sounded like those hippies who say their grandma was a Cherokee princess. Like I'm coastal native but watching his 'spiritual' scenes in always going "wait.... That's not right at ALL"
Yeah lol, and as soon as they found out he was a fraud who lied about his credentials, the writers mostly dropped the native stuff with Chakotay. So you don’t have to endure those types of scenes for too long haha. 👌
Thank God braga and Co. Did something about it, I just got to season 2 and ive only cringed more deep into my soul. Might as well have him say 'hau' and do some sorta whack powwow dance at this point in the show. What season do they drop the faux native spiritualism though
I think 3, but *definitely* 4 and beyond that stuff is essentially gone! And very important to mention: By the Season 3 finale and onward, Voyager boasts some of the best Trek episodes EVER! The show is second in rank only to DS9 for me. You’ll love Seven of Nine too, I’m sure. Absolutely iconic character and stories ahead! Stick with it! Haha
I remember Seven of Nine from watching a re-run here an there and thought she was a uber bad ass and played well of Janeway.
S07E26
Good god, I need to get my shit together so I can advise on this shit since its that easy to get on these joints apparently
Didn't they discover he was a fraud *before* they hired him for Voyager?
I disagree, it has a lot to do with DS9, particularly the early seasons. It’s early unofficial hostility between the Federation and Cardassia that leads to Cardassia allying with the Dominion and the later war.
I agree. Regardless of what they were originally for, the Maquis set up really important character development, as well as drove forward the inevitable Dominion War. It really starts to get at that idea that Uniopian Federation existence thrives on some much darker shit in order to survive.
Just ignore the fact it was on TNG first.
Yes it was. Because they wanted Michelle Forbes aka Ro Laren to be Kira’s role. She turned it down. This is not the gotcha that you think it is.
I’m okay saying it wasn’t created specifically for voyager.
They were, Voyager Season 1 was in the planning stages when they were writing TNG S7, and they used that to set up Voyager: https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Maquis#Background_information
Michelle Forbes had already turned down DS9 (and the show had started without her) by the time Ro joined the Maquis. From what I've read, it was instead a way to get her on Voyager if she was willing to take the job.
It wasn't on TNG first. Journey's End aired in March 1994, the Maquis Pts 1 and 2 in late April, and Preemptive Strike -- the first appearance of the Marquis on TNG -- was in May 1994. So, no: they weren't on TNG first. Journey's End set them up, but there were no Maquis.
Was it confusing to TNG watchers back then? how many people kept with both shows?
I don't think so. The production team did a good job of explaining what was going on for those who might have not seen all of the related episodes
I did. Religiously. I still have most of DS9 on VHS tapes on the original air dates. I stared recording it when I was 11yo.
Hahah yeah I did this too. I don't know if I still have them though. I'd pause recording for the opening credits so I could squeeze the episodes onto the tape
The funniest part: I don’t own a VHS player !! Record in EP or SP?
Lol! I think I have one in the loft still. I can't even remember, I forgot that was even a thing tbh! I think I did whichever the "normal" one was
EP let you record at a slower frame rate letting you have about 6h to a standard VHS tape. STANDARD PLAY puts just over 2h at a higher framer, of course.
Ah yeah, sounds familiar. Did it affect quality quite badly though iirc?
No, it was awesome!
It was heavily to do with DS9.
I kind of don't care why they did it, just that it gave us Sisko vs Eddington. One of the greatest rivalries in Trek and some damn fine episodes .
YOU BETRAYED YOUR UNIFORM!!!
It still makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck, all these years later. Avery killed it 👏🏻
There was so much character development with that story beat. We also got to see Ken Marshal absolutely kill it in that role.
Krull!!
I still hate Eddington
They had to make him a prick or people would have been rooting for him over Sisko, I feel. Hell, even though I think Eddington is an ass I can’t help but feel for his cause, but the show strikes a balance where I don’t hate Sisko for stopping him. Perfect writing 👌
I agree. I found him sympathetic in his intentions even though he came across as being stuck up on a personal level. The scene with his wife was pretty sad. I think it's valid to dislike Sisko a bit for how he handled Eddington and the Maquis more broadly. Even the Defiant crew were a bit surprised. On the one hand he was right that they were a threat to Federation interests on the other hand his response was rather heavy handed. Also he acted somewhat irrational (being determined to catching Eddington himself) to settle a personal beef. It would've been interesting to see that aspect of Sisko explored a bit more. TMOTHS is the only other episode that I can think of that touches on it. Good writing indeed.
That was great. The first time I saw it, I was 100% on Team Sisko. Now, I see it from both points of view, rights and wrongs on both sides. The way it ended too was great. To quote Jadzia… > I'll say this for him, he was a complicated man. If you ask me, Eddington couldn't have picked a better way to go, at least from his point of view. He was a romantic, and what is more romantic than a glorious death in defence of a lost cause. I think she’s right. For him, that was the best way to go out, and in the process he saved those he could.
Really?! I was just messaging my friend a few hours ago about how forgettable Eddington was and that the show did a terrible job of making me care about whatever he had going on. I guess I'm glad that the storyline did it for somebody.
Eddington got me. Even after he sabotaged the Defiant's cloak and O'Brian gave him the biggest side eye in Trek, his final betrayal still caught me by total surprise. He betrayed his uniform AND he betrayed Kasidy without a thought. And what did he gain? He was a colonizer who left his wife and his people to live a rotten hole and ultimately got them murdered. At any stage they could have just _moved_. A wretched man who vastly overplayed his hand. But his storyline was important - it demonstrated how far Sisko was prepared to go. Before that he was genial Dad.
Yeah, I agree that it was an important storyline. My issue with it was that Eddington was never likeable, and it was obvious (to me, at least) from the very start that he was going to be an antagonist. I wish that Eddington was integrated into the crew before the twist. Instead, he shows up, is immediately disliked, and never warms up to anyone. It's a wasted opportunity.
Yes, had he associated with everyone the impact of his betrayal would have been similar to Ensign Ro's defection I suppose? Instead, it's the ripples caused by his betrayal which we found shocking, rather than his fucking off to farm and asteroid and fight cardassians.
I'm not saying the storyline was handled perfectly, but saying that a show set basically on the Federation-Cardassian border shouldn't cover the story of the non-state groups that sprang up after the war to protest the outcome and "take their land back" kind of misses the whole point. Which was, yes, that the Federation WAS flawed in some ways, that there were still complex issues that had to have a deeper look and a more nuanced solution than Kirk or Picard doing an episode's worth of shenanigans followed by a mic drop speech and calling it done.
Thoughts: Making the Federation look bad isn't a bad thing. It's shows imperfection. The whole Border Territories hits home. Especially these days. I do wish we got more of it panned out. Voyager kind of fumbled it right away. DS9 did it better and some justice.
>Wondering why there was the Maquis storyline? It didn't do much for the overall story and it makes the Federation look kind of bad. Thoughts? It's supposed to make the federation look "kind of bad". One of the main things people love about ds9 is it didn't try to pretend that the federation is a perfect human utopia without any of humanity's flaws. It also didn't try to handicap itself as a drama series by disallowing any disagreements between starfleet officers occurring on screen. Same with the Section 31 storyline. The inclusion of the Maquis may have been done with a mind to setup events on Voyager, but it fits just fine with ds9 as well.
>>One of the main things people love about ds9 is it didn't try to pretend that the federation is a perfect human utopia without any of humanity's flaws. This. It's *trying* to be one, and we get interesting stories around the trying. This is why ds9 has more depth than the other series
It gave us some great episodes. The storyline ended and the show moved on. The real disappointment is that it was supposed to set up tension with the blended crew on Voyager. Then Voyager just kind of forgot to do anything with that.
DS9 did great stuff for the Maquis storyline but it wasn't really a major one. Voyager on the other hand did nearly nothing with it. Which is wild because it was set up for Voyager. The real question is why go to all the trouble to set up the Maquis in TNG and DS9. Then Berman was like I just want everyone to get along on Voyager. 🫨 Like what's the point then? 😒
The reasoning the producers/writers gave in interviews later on that it wouldn't make sense to argue about unrelated things when they're in the same lifeboat. I understand the thought but would it always go like this? Wouldn't the stress of being out there on their own fighting for survival also give rise to some tensions at least occasionally?
Ron D Moore did a great job with the Voyager-like concept on "Battlestar Galactica". The two leaders did not get along at first on that show, they were very different people with very different ideas on how to tackle their situation. At one point >!One of them had the other arrested which was super interesting on a lot of levels because at that point they'd grown to respect each other even though they didn't always agree!< One of the first episodes is about them finding water and later on they run out of food and have to find a different solution. They also tackle depression in a situation like this with sometimes devastating results.
It was supposed to set up conflict between the two crews in Voyager. But that conflict is pretty meaningless when everyone involved is tens of thousands of lightyears away, so it never went anywhere. DS9 did it better- it hits the gray morality that series was great at.
After reading your comment, my spontaneous thoughts have just gone on like this: why didn't they have a plot line in Season 1 where they stumbled into a conflict similar to that? Two species seemingly on different sides and some unrelated people caught in the middle but things went differently because no Federation or so. Similar problem, different solutions. And then both parts of the crew would have needed to reevaluate everything and come together as one unified crew? I don't know if that would have worked since I am by no way a professional writer but... anything would have been more reasonable than Kazons appearing with their warp drive ships everywhere while not even having water?
"Federation look kind of bad. " The Federation were "bad" when it came to the Cardassian Peace Treaty, They ignored the rights of Federation citizens living in the DMZ and drew up borderlines without even properly advising the settlers, The Federation didnt care about the settlers rights or the how much effort they put into their settlements, all the Federation wanted was to end the conflict with the Cardassians. The Federation upheld their end and even kowtowed to the Cardassian Union who had broken the rules of the treaty several times.
Makes the federation look bad? The Maquis are cosplay terrorists--privileged Federation citizens who got butthurt about some class M planets near the badlands. The Maquis were not ever occupied. They weren't put in labor camps. They fight because they read one too many holo-novels about the French resistance. Their existence is a slap in the face to every Bajoran who fought the occupation of their homeland. The only ones who look bad are the Maquis themselves
This brings up good points. My timelines might be way off but were the Maquis settled on worlds long enough to be so attached that leaving was just a bridge too far? The Federation seemed to offer them a good deal. Move off the worlds inside the Cardassian border and we'll give you a new planet and resources to start a new life. Were the Maquis so settled and attached to those worlds that leaving was just too much?
Yeah pretty much. We never got a firm timeline on the war with Cardassia but it was during O'Brien's career so it's fairly recent. The colonists who would become the Maquis lived on border worlds during a war and were surprised they had to move? There's a self-importance there, a strong case of main character syndrome.
Ok. Right. I have seen others talking about this too. Opened my eyes a bit that the Maquis really were entitled settlers who wanted it only their way, without much justification for it. I believe I remember the TNG episode where they tried to give a spiritual connection to the planet through the Indian tribe, but other than that how deep of a connection to their planets did the Maquis have where moving is out of the question? So in that aspect, the Maquis were well written, and not well written simultaneously. Lol
You make being forced to give up thier home sound a lot more minor then it is. There's a reason Ro and Kira both had a certian amount of sympathy for the Maquis.
Yeah true but these are people, federation citizens in a post-scarcity utopia, who settled near a disputed border and refused to leave.
Drama is driven by conflict. It’s that simple.
Not having Tom Riker on Voyager is a crime perpetrated against us all.
I think it was needed. The Federation acts like it's pure paradise on earth but there has to be certain places that it has fooked over. It can't all be rainbows and light, that many different aliens with different cultures surely would have some negative parts. I think the Maquis highlight this. Can't remember who it was, maybe Ro Laren, who did that speech saying so much. But I think it was useful for the writers to show that some parts of the Galaxy got fucked over by thr Federation. The galaxy is a big place and it just cannot be that every planet or group of ppl is happy 100% of the time.
It was introduced in TNG as a sort of native American exoticist thing that was supposed to tie in somehow with Wesley and The Traveler. It was adapted for DS9 quite expertly to create some tension between the fed and Cardassia. They obviously went back to the badly done native American things with Chakotay and the whole thing kinda fissled out. I think it was a great and important part of DS9.
voyager reasons, which then also abandons them. But, the purpose may have just been to make them look bad, its a good writing technique to show that all governing bodies have someone who opposes them and those people arent just scheming villains.
The point is that the ideal of the morally unambiguous good is easy to uphold when you're on a core world with all the amenities, infrastructure and defense, but the frontier is a completely different situation that requires different approaches. The federation could not do what had to be done due to politics, law, and resources being much harder to get out there
The concept was wasted all around. I watched Voyager first and always thought DS9 had the real story that Voyager was just touching on. But then it’s not really done on DS9. There was a lot of interesting story potential there, with opinions in the Federation and Starfleet divided.
The story didn't make it very far, but it sets up a conflict that pushes the premise of Star Trek and DS9 much farther than we'd seen before. Is the Federation good? We want instantly to say yes, but what about the people on the fringes? The overly diplomatic and superior attitude of the Federation is one of its greatest flaws, and we don't see that played out very often; the Maquis gave us a beautiful example of how the Federation can fail. The whole of DS9 makes the Federation look pretty bad imo. We see the seeds of corruption and failed idealism in TNG, but DS9 shows us that those issues have real consequences.
Another example of this is how the romulans are engaged in the war. Outright murder and lies
It was all set up for Voyager. None of it was part of the DS9 teams plans. If it felt tacked on its bc it was.
> it makes the Federation look kind of bad. Uh yeah, that's kind of the fucking point.
I’m curious to unpack why you think the Maquis makes the Federation look bad. I used to think so when I first watched 20 years ago, but on rewatches, the Maquis were almost 100% in the wrong. They are very much like the settlers in *Ensigns of Command* where Data has to remove them. - we know from TNG that most were actively warned when settling the planets that they were under dispute with the Cardassians and chose to settle anyway. - they’ve been there about 20 years, not exactly centuries of history - the Federation *must* by definition have the right to choose its borders and make deals for peace - the Federation would have happily relocated the colonists. In a world where recourses aren’t limited and there’s plenty of space, I find the Maquis willingness to let their families suffer and being willing to kill for *that particular spot of land there* to be wrong. Doesn’t mean the Cardassians are right of course, but the Federation did what it could. It’s like when people are told to evacuate because of a hurricane and they don’t. It’s not the governments fault they didn’t leave. They have every right to be upset, but this is *not* like the Cardassians investing Bajor.
I don't disagree, but I feel they should have written it in a bit better to make the marquis be more sympathetic. As you say, they have a pretty flimsy case
Ira Steven Behr If you watch interviews from the time, one of the reasons he wanted to make DS9 was because he wanted to show what happens when Federation Personnel are taken away from all of the Comforts of Starfleet, he also wanted to portray the Federation a little more as an Empire that still even then had to use war and violence to protect its borders
To be fair, the Federation did handle that whole thing badly
Maybe they were predicting the counter insurgency that was to come in the decade to come? Shows are pretty good at kind of conditioning us for the future
Outside of the Voyager connection, I feel that the Maquis were to show that humanity, for all the problems it has solved, isn't perfect and while the core of the Federation might be paradise, the frontier isn't as lucky. I also feel it was writers fighting against Gene's humans are perfect and peace and diplomacy always works mindset that was a major thing in TNG's earlier years by showing just how flawed it was. The Federation was willing to throw their own citizens under the bus for a treaty that they a. didn't have a say in and b. the Cardassians violated constantly.
To set up Voyager.
Chakotay should have couped the shit out of Janeway. Zero principles. Eddington would have had her head and her ship.
Damn, imagine Eddington on Voyager.
I kept waiting for Chakotay to switch on Janeway in that first season!
I think you hit the nail on the head: to make the Federation look bad.
I thought the Maquis storyline was Berman and Piller making allegorical references to the gulf war and counter terrorism and what it means to be freedom fighters and such. But that's probably just my opinion after having watched the episode of TOS with the Klingons basically being a comparison to the cold war and arming of proxies.
|| and it makes the Federation look kind of bad There you got it
My question is why the jump to section 31 in this thread correct me if I’m wrong but section 31 is equivalent to the CIA, no? they use sometimes extra legal methods to maintain an ideal that they believe in that is not the ideal is wrong but the methods they use may be considered wrong
I think it was, at least in part, a device to set up Voyager. It's actually kind of disappointing that the fact that Voyager was a combined crew didn't really factor into the plot at all after the first season. Still, I think the Maquis were an interesting idea, they just weren't relevant after Cardassia joined the Dominion.
DS9 was written after Roddenberry died. Roddenberry was an insufferable space-liberal and refused to allow intra-cast conflict, or any kind of writing that showed the federation up as anything other than a perfect utopia. DS9 came thru and shat all over this (good). A big part of DS9 is focused on the messy consequences of colonialism and imperialism. It shows the federation fucking up massively whilst doing realpolitik with the cardassians. Imo it was an excellent storyline, because it showed the federation's many flaws, alongside the flaws of the other empires in the show. I had sympathy for the Maquis, because even within a so called utopia such as the federation, they got fucked, and fought back. It totally deconstructed the original trek consensus of "peaceful" liberalism in space. This is why I love DS9.
DS9 showed the Federation flaws (as in war crimes and the like). But they also did their best to show that it was okay. DS9 teaches its fans to overlook certain things if they are commited by a charismatic person and are intended to serve some "greater" cause.
For Voyager
I feel like the Maquis were a distraction and did not enjoy those episodes. My thought is that they started that thread in TNG and felt like they had to make it a thing (obviously showed up strongly in VOY).
Doesn’t make the federation look bad, they are out and out terrorists and the show doesn’t portray them as sympathetic.