• More reasons why there won't be a DS9 movie? March 02 - 9:08 pm

The post's title says it all folks.

Because not enough people watched DS9 to justify one.

I agree with Doug B. It does not have the automatic built in audience that TOS or TNG have.

I am a big DS9 fan, but can live without a movie, but PLEASE don't make a Voyager movie instead!!!

I'd love a movie with members of all three of the casts (or even four, if Scotty makes an appearance), perhaps a story that features different locations, and settings like DS9, the Enterprise, and maybe different characters from the different series working together. Perhaps Section 31 has discovered an alliance between the Dominion and the Borg, so Janeway and Seven of Nine are on DS9 pooling their knowledge of the Borg with the DS9 crew. Perhaps Bashir is on the Enterprise working with Data and Geordi on possible defenses, since Data was instrumental in the first defeat of the Borg, and Bashir has knowledge of positronics, not only from his encounter with Data in Birthright part I(TNG), but from his use of the positronic implant on Bareil in Life Support(DS9). The possibilities are endless.

I'd LOVE an New Frontier movie!

Because ...

1) Sisko is dead (or a prophet, anyway)
2) Dukat is dead
3) Odo has left to join the Founders
4) Dax is dead, and her 20-show replacement sucked
5) Michael Dorn is sick of Star Trek and does not want to be playing Worf until he is fifty
6) The seven seasons brought closure and continuity to the whole show in a way that didn't happen at all with TOS and TNG. To reopen it would ruin that.
7) A Starship is just naturally more conducive to a good, adventurous plot. A static space station and the Defiant don't suit it.
8) DS9's main characters were not all Starfleet bridge crew, so any film would either have to miss many of them out, or have a plot convoluted to the point of absurdity (How the hell could they get say Quark, Kira, Dukat and O`Brien all in one credible storyline?).
9) DS9 never had the popularity of other shows, for a variety of reasons I won't speculate on.
10) Unlike most of the TOS and TNG crew, many of the DS9 lot actually have some hope of a film and TV career outside Star Trek (ie. Colm Meaney).

I think that about covers it. Sorry and all that...

Peter.

Luigi, no offence but that plot idea sounds horrible and completely unsuited to a film. The first thing Paramount throws in the bin when they get amateur plotlines and scripts sent in is crossover shows. I agree with that decision. For all the hype and anticipation, I don't think any crossover show or film has been good. Unification had a brief, but interesting conversation between Spock and Data, but that was it.

Generations was awful. Kirk and Picard didn't talk about anything interesting, and Kirk had turned into some sort of selfish nancyboy who didn't care about duty and had to be reminded of it by Picard.

The appearances of McCoy and Scotty were token and annoying. Crossover shows just don't work as a format, because they double the cast and because the main characters have to give up so much screentime. Plus, it is kind of silly to mix almost unrelated fictional characters together. I am sure it would be very interesting to see Sherlock Holmes meet Harry Seldon, but it isn't a good format for a serious fictional work. Same with Star Trek.

Peter.

You did not like "Trials And Tribble-ations"?

Well I didn't think it was particularly good, no. But the reason I didn't mention it was that it wasn't a genuine crossover - merely a DS9 episode set across the backdrop of an old TOS show.

Peter.

Peter:
1) Sisko is dead
2) Dukat is dead (or a prophet, anyway)
3) Odo has left to join the Founders
Luigi Novi: Sisko told Kassidy he might return one day. So may Odo, and even Dukat, whose manner of "death" was somewhat supernatural, and therefore, open to liscence. Moreover, the story doesn’t necessarily require them, or at least, all of them.

Peter: 4) Dax is dead, and her 20-show replacement sucked
Luigi Novi: If you meant to say "twenty-year old," she was twenty-nine at the time the series ended (the actress who played her, at least), and is now 32. As for how she "sucked," well, to each his own. I liked her, and found her far more believable as a character trying to cope with multiple past personalities.

Peter: 5) Michael Dorn is sick of Star Trek and does not want to be playing Worf until he is fifty
Luigi Novi: Fine by me, but that seems like an odd statement to make, given that A.) he’s pretty much done that (he turns fifty less than two weeks after Star Trek Nemesis is released later this year), and B.) his character is no longer on DS9.

Peter: 6) The seven seasons brought closure and continuity to the whole show in a way that didn't happen at all with TOS and TNG. To reopen it would ruin that.
Luigi Novi: So long as the story built on or continued what came before without undoing it, or perhaps didn’t pertain to the main premise or arc of the series itself, that wouldn’t be a problem. Besides, DS9 is already being continued in the novels and comics.

Peter: 7) A Starship is just naturally more conducive to a good, adventurous plot. A static space station and the Defiant don't suit it.
Luigi Novi: I disagree entirely. This sounds like the "they don’t go nowhere!" refrain heard when DS9 first premeired, and I think it did a good job of telling an adventurous story. Besides, isn’t the Defiant a starship? And, Star Trek First Contact was a crossover movie of sorts with all four (at the time) shows: The Defiant from DS9, the EMH from Voyager, Zephram Cochrane from Metamorphosis(TOS). Any future movie could have a similar crossover element, thought with only slightly more material from the other shows. Lastly, the strength of the story is derived from many different aspects of its production, of which setting is only one. Many good stories have A-plot and B-plots, each with a different setting, so it wouldn’t be impossible to have the movie take place in different settings if it were written well.

Peter: 8) DS9's main characters were not all Starfleet bridge crew, so any film would either have to miss many of them out
Luigi Novi: Which is pretty much what I was saying. The story wouldn’t have to have the ENTIRE CAST of all four shows. Just ones that were among the most popular, or that would be relevant to the story.

Peter: 9) DS9 never had the popularity of other shows, for a variety of reasons I won't speculate on.
Luigi Novi: That’s true. But a film with different elements from the different shows wouldn’t be a bad idea. It could be mostly a TNG story with elements from DS9 and VOY to attract those who were fans of those shows. The trick would be writing the story to make it seem logical, and since it isn’t unheard of for people from different ships or stations to interact, for admirals to meet with captains, for ships to dock at stations, etc., it could be done. They did this with ST First Contact, and Janeway will appear in ST Nemesis. Of course, these were merely appearances in a TNG film, so the trick would be writing the story so that characters from the different series had a believable role.

Peter: 10) Unlike most of the TOS and TNG crew, many of the DS9 lot actually have some hope of a film and TV career outside Star Trek (ie. Colm Meaney).
Luigi Novi: All of the TNG crew have been busy with acting and directing assignments in TV, movies and on Broadway since TNG wrapped. Just because they appear in things you don’t see (i.e.: programs you don’t watch, or shows on Broadway that you’re unaware of) doesn’t mean they’re out of work.

Peter: Luigi, no offence but that plot idea sounds horrible and completely unsuited to a film.
Luigi Novi: No, seriously, Peter, tell me what you really think.

The above idea, was just an example, not a serious thing I’d "send in" as a spec script.

Peter: I don't think any crossover show or film has been good.
Luigi Novi: To each his own. I liked the Unification(TNG) two-parter. Birthright part I(TNG) was okay. Relics(TNG) was pretty good. ST First Contact was good. Q’s first two appearances on Voyager were okay. I loved Trials and Tribble-ations(DS9). And Peter David often works in characters from different shows into his novels, as with the Excalibur crew’s presence in the TNG novel Double or Nothing, Odo and the Redeemer virus in Imzadi II, the planet killer in the TNG novel Vendetta, Scotty’s appearance in the Excalibur trilogy in the New Frontier novels, etc.

Peter: Generations was awful. Kirk and Picard didn't talk about anything interesting, and Kirk had turned into some sort of selfish nancyboy who didn't care about duty and had to be reminded of it by Picard.
Luigi Novi: Yeah, Generations was awful, but Kirk’s behavior didn’t bother me. He was simply acting under the influence of a powerful force, much as the rest of the crew did This Side of Paradise(TOS), Night Terrors(TNG), Strange New World(ENT), etc. Had the movie taken the position that this was a legitimate behavior on his part, that would be one thing, but it made it clear that he simply wasn’t being himself, much like many episodes did.

I would also point out that Picard didn’t succeed in reminding him of his duty. It clicked for Kirk on his own when he jumped that ditch on his horse. (Pick, pick, pick!)

Peter: Crossover shows just don't work as a format, because they double the cast and because the main characters have to give up so much screentime.
Luigi Novi: In addition to the aforementioned point that the entire casts don’t have to be used, I would point out that simply because the three TNG movies to date have only used one series’ cast hasn’t stopped the secondary characters from getting the short end of the screen time stick.

Peter: Plus, it is kind of silly to mix almost unrelated fictional characters together. I am sure it would be very interesting to see Sherlock Holmes meet Harry Seldon, but it isn't a good format for a serious fictional work. Same with Star Trek.
Luigi Novi: How are they unrelated? They’re all in the same universe, all or most of them are in the Alpha Quadrant, most of them are all in Starfleet, and officers get transferred to new assignments and different ships and stations all the time. If Commander Shelby or Captain Jellico could be assigned to the Enterprise in The Best of Both Worlds(TNG) or Chain of Command(TNG), why couldn’t Bashir or Kira, or one of the TNG crew go to DS9?

Peter: the reason I didn't mention it was that it wasn't a genuine crossover - merely a DS9 episode set across the backdrop of an old TOS show.
Luigi Novi: One crew interacted with another crew in the middle of a TOS episode. It was a crossover. "Crossover" doesn’t require that the participants are joined at the hip or exchange bodily fluids.

Peter: Plus, it is kind of silly to mix almost unrelated fictional characters together. I am sure it would be very interesting to see Sherlock Holmes meet Harry Seldon, but it isn't a good format for a serious fictional work. Same with Star Trek.

As Luigi pointed out not exactly the same thing because DS9 is a spin off set in the same universe not 2 unrelated sets of fictional character in diferent universes.

I'd personaly like to see them make some big epic mini-series that could cross areas of the federation and incorporate new characters and some characters from several of the other series (even if the characters are on new assignments). That would also allow them to show us some of the characters moving on rather than the old problem of "It's 10 years later and every one's still doing the same thing as they were when we last saw them"

Peter: 4) Dax is dead, and her 20-show replacement sucked
Luigi Novi: If you meant to say "twenty-year old," she was twenty-nine at the time the series ended (the actress who played her, at least), and is now 32. As for how she "sucked," well, to each his own. I liked her, and found her far more believable as a character trying to cope with multiple past personalities.

No, he meant "20-episode".

Ah. Then it should be 25-episode, not 20-episode. (Pick, pick, pick!)

Sisko told Kassidy he might return one day. So may Odo, and even Dukat, whose manner of "death" was somewhat supernatural, and therefore, open to liscence. Moreover, the story doesn’t necessarily require them, or at least, all of them.

I think a good film would indeed require all the main cast to be worthwhile.

As for how she "sucked," well, to each his own. I liked her, and found her far more believable as a character trying to cope with multiple past personalities.

You mean neurotic, self-obsessed, psychiatric and without a semblance of mental strength? Greeaaat...

And yes, I did mean twenty episodes, despite knowing the typical Star Trek season lasts tenty-six. Sometimes phrases need to be catchy rather than accurate.

Fine by me, but that seems like an odd statement to make, given that A.) he’s pretty much done that (he turns fifty less than two weeks after Star Trek Nemesis is released later this year), and B.) his character is no longer on DS9.

Interesting, and I had forgotten Worf left the station. Again though, would DS9 be quite the same without him?

So long as the story built on or continued what came before without undoing it, or perhaps didn’t pertain to the main premise or arc of the series itself, that wouldn’t be a problem.

Considering how virtually all the crew has split up, died or left, I can't see how this could be possible.

The above idea, was just an example, not a serious thing I’d "send in" as a spec script.

Fair enough, but I can't see it being improved much. Crossovers are just ratings-grabbers, rarely good shows.

I would also point out that Picard didn’t succeed in reminding him of his duty. It clicked for Kirk on his own when he jumped that ditch on his horse. (Pick, pick, pick!)

Uh huh. I didn't say Picard suceeded.

How are they unrelated? They’re all in the same universe

Well the characters of Friends and Frasier are in the same country, let alone the same universe (right ... ?). But I hope you can appreciate why a crossover wouldn't work.

"Crossover" doesn’t require that the participants are joined at the hip or exchange bodily fluids.

Yeah, but in my book it does require that some members of both casts actually turn up to film a scene. Trials and Tribblations was just a DS9 episode with some old TOS footage in the background.

Peter.

I think a good film would indeed require all the main cast to be worthwhile.

If you are going to do Star Trek DS9: the Movie that's probably right, but I persoanly would like to see some of DS9's characters in some other Trek incarnation.

Well the characters of Friends and Frasier are in the same country, let alone the same universe (right ... ?). But I hope you can appreciate why a crossover wouldn't work.

We don't mean universe in the sense of a real physical space. It's a term that means the occupy the same fictional universe. It is a term that started with comics. It's like this: Sherlock Holmes exists in one universe that Connan Doyle created. That universe consists of Holmes and all of the settings & characters from his Holmes books. If Connan Doyle were to take a supporting character from one of the Holmes books & write a book with that character in it that book would take place in the same universe as the Holmes books, even if Holmes isn't in it. For example Chris Carter's Millinium series was never set up as a spinoff of the X-files and didn't start with any crossovers but than they wrote an ep were the character of Jose Chung (of The X-files' Jose Chung's From Outer Space episode) appeared. This established that both shows take place in the same universe. Later on The X-files did an ep where Millinium's Frank Black appeared. Now if the characters had been watching Millinium on TV in one ep and than interacting with characters from millinium in another episode that would be an error since the other show either has to take place in the same universe or it does not take place in the same universe, not both.

Peter: Considering how virtually all the crew has split up, died or left, I can't see how this could be possible.
Luigi Novi: The Enterprise is investigating an anomaly, planet or situation on a planet close to Bajor that leads them to believe that the Breen, the Cardassians, or the Dominion might be involved in some plot to regain power, which may impact Bajor. While Picard remains on this planet, Riker heads to DS9, along with at least one more Enterprise member, where he investigates another lead with Kira, either there or on Bajor. If the mission requires a science officer, Dax could be involved. If it involves some new biological weapon, Bashir could be involved. Just a random example.

Peter: Well the characters of Friends and Frasier are in the same country, let alone the same universe (right ... ?).
Luigi Novi: No. The word "universe" is used in this context to mean fictional continuum, much like comic book characters that are all published by Marvel are said to reside in the "Marvel Universe," or those from DC belong to the "DC universe."

Again, crews from different ships and stations interact, are transferred, or temporarily posted to new assignments all the time. Enterprise visited DS9 twice in the episodes, why not once more?

Peter: But I hope you can appreciate why a crossover wouldn't work.
Luigi Novi: You have every right, of course to your opinion, Peter. In my opinion, it’s not a logistical impossibility.

If the mission requires a science officer, Dax could be involved

Why? Ezri Dax is a counselor. The late Jadzia was a science officer.

Oh yeah.

Actually, according to the new DS9 books, Ezri is command track now.

Actually, according to the new DS9 books, Ezri is command track now.

However, since the books aren't canon, that would matter little if they decided to include her in a future show or movie.

Fair enough, but I can't see it being improved much. Crossovers are just ratings-grabbers, rarely good shows.

Well, how about the aforementioned Relics and Unification?

Or Voyager's Pathfinder and Life Line (the ones with Barclay)? Or DS9's Blood Oath or any episodes involving Gowron (a TNG character) or Kor?

Of course, it all depends on what you define a crossover to be.

Yeah, but in my book it does require that some members of both casts actually turn up to film a scene. Trials and Tribblations was just a DS9 episode with some old TOS footage in the background.

Except that episode also included the guy played Arne Darvin from the original episode.

Moreover, when both casts are from shows set in the SAME and (ideally) internally consistent fictional universe, is it truly a crossover?

Of course, I should also mention the DS9 Mirror Universe episodes, like... Crossover!

They qualify as "good" shows for the most part.

Please do not mention the mirror universe episodes, I have tried to get those out of my head.

As for a DS9 movie I would love to see it, afterall it was the best of all the series (IMHO). I think the best we can hope for are small roles on upcoming movies. OF course I like Luigi's last idea for a movie that sounded good.

I have to agree with Hammar about the mirror universe.

A DS9 movie makes sense to me, since most of the loose ends were tied up, but we were left hanging about the fate of Sisko, and his unborn child. Who says it has to be a theatrical release? A two-part, two-night movie of the week would do it for me. Heck, paramount should know by now that this will be extra bucks in the bank for them from merchandising, and Berman is around for another 6 years at Paramount, so why not do it?
As much as I'd like to see full crews from the various series combine, I'd be satisfied with one or two from the other series making important cameos.
We're just 4 and a half years from the 40th anniversary, guys. Paramount will definitely make a big deal out of it, but how and with what, is anybody's guess.

A DS9 movie would be pointless. Why? Simple: for the first two seasons, DS9 had something of the TNG style of fairly independent episodes.

But then, the last 5 seasons of DS9 were the Dominion War. Yeah, I know there were different facets of the war (UFP-Klingon War, the standoffs, the Pah-wraiths, etc.), but it was a linear, continous story with only occasional breaks in the main action.

After 5 seasons of that, what could possibly be of interest? A threat to Bajor? That's been worn to death. A war? Right. The alternate universe? Maybe...but I don't see DS9 as the best vehicle for this. A Cardassian threat is laughable, after 800 million of them died. Romulans? Their DS9 involvement was always kind of minimal, plus they'll be in the "Nemesis". What could a DS9 movie be about that would be remotely interesting?

They'd have to make a villain up, and when has that ever worked in a Trek movie? V'ger from ST1? Sybok from ST5? Soran from "Generations"? The Baku from "Insurrection"? No, not really. The good villains were Khan, the Borg, the Klingons, etc.

Good villains don't develop in 45 minutes. The Klingons were developed for years in TOS before ST6. Khan had an episode to set him up, before he reappeared in ST2. The Borg had 6 eps on TNG.

A DS9 movie would be pointless. Why? Simple: for the first two seasons, DS9 had something of the TNG style of fairly independent episodes.

What about The Circle trilogy? The Maquis? There was no lack of long term development in Season 2.

And, once again, the Dominion War did not last for five seasons - and I fail to see how a fairly continuous storyline would make a movie "pointless" or uninteresting.

Here's an idea: A movie dealing with the rebuilding (and likely occupation) of Cardassia, and all the associated issues. That would be great!

Jesse: But then, the last 5 seasons of DS9 were the Dominion War.
Luigi Novi: No they weren’t. The Dominion War began at the end of the last episode of the fifth season, Call to Arms. The war lasted two seasons, not five.

Jesse: Yeah, I know there were different facets of the war (UFP-Klingon War, the standoffs, the Pah-wraiths, etc.), but it was a linear, continous story with only occasional breaks in the main action.
Luigi Novi: Stories can be continued, Jesse. The fact that the show had a certain story arc in its seven-year run doesn’t mean future stories can’t be built from it. They’re still publishing new DS9 novels set after What You Leave Behind, aren’t they?

Jesse: After 5 seasons of that, what could possibly be of interest?
Luigi Novi: Lots of things! That’s what writers do, Jesse. They come up with stuff.

Jesse: A threat to Bajor? That's been worn to death.
Luigi Novi: A theme or story idea can be used more than once if a new angle, approach to it, aspect of it or execution of it is used. Was ST First Contact invalidated as a story, simply because ST TMP, and ST IV depicted threats to Earth?

For that matter, isn’t EVERY story involving a villain on Trek about some plot that is conceivably a threat to Earth? Isn’t Khan a threat to Earth? The Dominion? Admiral Leyton in Paradise Lost(DS9) when he wanted to effect a military coup? The mutants in Statistical Improbabilities(DS9) who wanted to surrender Earth to the Dominion?

The ability for any story lies in the storyteller’s ability to execute the story so that it grabs your attention and your emotions and takes them for a ride. Originality of story or theme is certainly one thing, but it isn’t the only thing. There’s only a certain finite number of such different ideas, and at this point in the history of storytelling, the trick is mostly about recycling them in way that seems original.

Jesse: A war? Right. The alternate universe? Maybe...but I don't see DS9 as the best vehicle for this. A Cardassian threat is laughable, after 800 million of them died. Romulans? Their DS9 involvement was always kind of minimal, plus they'll be in the "Nemesis". What could a DS9 movie be about that would be remotely interesting?
Luigi Novi: Try listing all the villains and other characters in the episodes of TNG and DS9 over the years. You’re telling me that NONE might make for an interesting story?

Jesse: They'd have to make a villain up…
Luigi Novi: No, they wouldn’t. Q, Sela, Rasmussen, the Beetle-like parasites from Conspiracy(TNG), Silerin, the Pagh Wraith Worshippers, the T’Lani, the Kellerun, the Argrathi, one of the Hundred Changelings, etc. could be used, (or some wayward or rogue member of one of those races}.

A villain could be a recurring one or a new one, it doesn’t necessarily have to be a new one.

Jesse: …and when has that ever worked in a Trek movie? No, not really. The good villains were Khan, the Borg, the Klingons, etc.
Luigi Novi: The fact that the best villains just happened to have been recurring ones (and that’s just an opinion—I thought Chang in ST VI was pretty good as a villain) does not necessarily mean that a villain has to be one in order to be compelling. The relationship between the two is incidental, not causal. It is extremely narrow-minded to think that all of the talent of a good writer means nothing, and that one element and one element alone—whether the villain in recurring or new—is they one and only factor that determines the quality of a villain, and for that matter, the story. It’s the quality of the writing.

Can we assume you’ve already made up your mind about ST Nemesis because of Shinzon and the Remans?

Jesse: The Baku from "Insurrection"?
Luigi Novi: Uh, they were the good guys, Jesse.

I believe you were thinking of the Son’a.

Jesse: Good villains don't develop in 45 minutes.
Luigi Novi: Really? So every original movie with a villain that didn’t have some type of prequel (or one the viewer hadn’t seen)—The Silence of the Lambs, The Usual Suspects, Star Wars, Cape Fear, Seven, FAILED ENTIRELY because there wasn’t some episode of a TV show where that character appeared first? Are you saying that Khan fails as a villain if someone who never saw Space Seed watched ST II? I can assure you that I had never seen the episode when I first saw the movie, and Khan was an EXCELLENT villain. I also thought Christopher Plummer’s Chang was a cool.

For that matter, if good villains don’t develop in 45 minutes, does that mean NONE of the Trek EPISODES had good villains, particularly the modern ones, given that they’re only 42 minutes long?

Again, there are MANY factors that determine the quality of a good story, and more than one that determine the quality of a good villain. Judging one based solely on one narrow factor, is akin to judging the concept of DS9 based on one factor—the fact that it’s set on a station rather than a ship, as if one element—setting, determines the overall quality of a series. A good writer with talent who works hard can write a good story, and a good villain, even if he is limited by certain parameters (he has to make an original villain that’s never been seen before, is using time-honored themes or elements that have been done before, etc.). A good writer, and for that matter, the producers, director, actors, and other artists on a movie, can take story elements that on the surface, sound mediocre, unoriginal or simple in theory, and execute them in a way that elevates them above the way the concept alone sounds.

Jesse: The Klingons were developed for years in TOS before ST6. Khan had an episode to set him up, before he reappeared in ST2. The Borg had 6 eps on TNG.
Luigi Novi: Again, does this mean that the villain wasn’t a good villain in the episode that set them up? Were the Borg not a scary villain in Q Who(TNG)? Are you saying that if there never was a Space Seed, (and the prior history between Kirk and Khan was alluded in ST II to have occurred offscreen, or say in flashback), then Khan would’ve been a poor villain in the movie?

One of the reasons I'm enjoying 'Avatar' Books 1 & 2 is to see what came after the series finale (even if it isn't 'canon'). A movie could tell us what happened to Sisko, what happened to his unborn child, what happened to Odo, what happened to O'Brien, it could introduce replacement characters as 'Avatar' has done, and let's not forget that the station has the Defiant to explore other planets, but what the heck, let's send the station into the wormhole and see how things work out!
The thing about villians, is that there's always somebody bigger, and nastier out there. Starfleet thought the Romulans were bad, but then the Klingons showed up, and then the Borg, and then the Dominion with the Jem'Hadar. No doubt, there's something bigger and scarier than them, too.
DS9 hasn't run its course, because as Luigi points out, they're still making DS9 novels, as well as TNG and TOS books, and expanding on ideas and characters.
DS9 ended with some unanswered questions, and it'd be nice to get a tv-movie or series of movies to continue, but not end, the story.

When they make a new movie I hope they provide an acceptable explanation why the Enterprise was absent from the Dominion war.

I feel the most plausible one is that the ship was destroyed, with some possible loss of hands.

The new movie can start out with a flashback(the way DS9 did at Wolf 359), and any TNG cast member that wants too much money or is being a pain in the rump can be written out of the show as a casuality.

There will be enough cast members between TNG and DS9 to make up a good story. Good storeys is what it is all about anyways.

Bob James: When they make a new movie I hope they provide an acceptable explanation why the Enterprise was absent from the Dominion War.
Luigi Novi: Where have you established that it was absent?

The Enterprise was certainly present during the war; we simply didn't see the front on which she fought. Space is big, Bob, and so is the Alpha Quadrant. For all we know, the Enterprise repelled the Dominion from Betazed the Dominion occupied it.

Of course, I think Insurrection could have been a much better film had it included more of the War than one token line.

I think it could've been better if the "Insurrection" actually felt like an Insurrection instead of going up against one wayward admiral, if the humor was less lousy, the science a bit more solid, and the love story less superficial.

The story had nothing to do with the Dominion War, so I wouldn't have expected it to be featured more heavily, but I do think they should've had the Enterprise on a more war-related mission in the beginning of the movie instead of a fluffy diplomatic one, and made a better effort to explain Worf's presence.

Agreed.

And I think they should have made some effort to explain Worf's presence, rather than copping-out by having Picard interrupt Worf's explanation.

I realize that the Enterprise E with Picard could have been defending Betazed, or the calm area it patrolled at the beginning of the Borg movie, but one would think that the conversations with Admiral Ross and Martok during the season finale would have included some input by Picard.

If this is a battle for survival, considering the Enterprise saved the universe upteem times, there would be at least a bit of involvement.

Obviously the real reason is because of the expense and unavailability of the TNG actors.

I think the most realsitic explanation is that the ship was lost early on in the war. And then Picard spent some time in rehab to account for the fact his input is no where to be seen.

Bob R: I realize that the Enterprise E with Picard could have been defending Betazed, or the calm area it patrolled at the beginning of the Borg movie..
Luigi Novi: The war hadn't begun by the time of ST First Contact. The war didn't begin until the last episode of DS9's fifth season. ST FC's stardate is 50893.5, which places it sometime after Children of Time.

Bob R: ..but one would think that the conversations with Admiral Ross and Martok during the season finale would have included some input by Picard.
Luigi Novi: I agree that the season finale is one episode where it would've not only been plausible to feature the Enterprise, but perhaps even a nit not to. The external reason is that they don't want to use the Sovereign-class ships outside of the NextGen movies (and they want to save Picard and Data as well). The internal explanation could be that the Enterprise was on the other side of the Federation fighting on or guarding other fronts when the Dominion pulled back to Cardassian space, and couldn't get to DS9 in time for the invasion of Cardassia Prime.

Bob R: I think the most realsitic explanation is that the ship was lost early on in the war.
Luigi Novi: The ship wasn't lost. It appears again in ST Nemesis.

The most realistic explanation is that is fighting on other fronts during the war, and was too far away/on other duties at the very end of it.

Hmm, perhaps the Enterprise was protecting the Sol system and Earth or some other "core" Federation world.

Then they did a crud job of protecting Earth. Remember, the Breen trashed San Francisco.

Given that the damage did not appear as catastrophic as say, 9/11, and that they managed to destroy "most" of the invasion force, I'd say that if the Enterprise was there, it did a pretty good job, and even moreso if it was alone.

Of course, even in wartime, the Enterprise would probably still have been "the only ship in range" of the Breen fleet.

We only saw one shot of the damage and it looked like the Breen had totaled Starfleet Headquarters! We later see a map of the San Fransisco area from the Dominion's perspective and it has little red "hit" dots all over it. Sounds like the Breen did a thorough job.

It occurs to me that Voyager never showed any damage at Starfleet HQ in its Barclay episodes. Seems like a rather significant oversight.

It's the 24th century. We have no idea how fast they can repair Starfleet Headquarters. They probably have tech that can do it really fast. Especially in the central hub of Starfleet.

It does seem a bit quick to me, even for the 24th century, that they could repair something like the Golden Gate Bridge in nine or ten months, given the stardates.

Are you kidding? With replicators, transporters, anti-grav, and a tireless workforce of EMH mk.I, I'm sure they could repair most damage fairly quickly.

However, we never got a psychological sense on the Voyager episodes that the Feds had just gone through a destructive and bloody war.

Because the focus wasn't on Earth or even Starfleet, but on Barclay.

True, but wouldn't it have had some effect, especially on someone like Barclay?

I'm sure it would've had an effect on all Federation citizens and Earth residents at the time it occurred, and in the months after it ended, but exactly what specifically visible effect would one have expected to be displayed in Barclay nine or ten months later in Pathfinder? The subject didn't come up, and wasn't pertinent to the episode's story.

But we are talking about Barclay here! For someone as neurotic as he is, I would have expected at least a token mention of the attack in his talk with Troi.

He didn't saying anything because IWITS (It Wasent In the Scpipt)

But we don't know if he was even present during the attack.

I had assumed that they had Barclay on the Enterprise during the Dominion War, since they would want all capable engineers on ships to keep them in fighting shape, and that it was after the war, and maybe even BECAUSE of being in the war, that Barclay stopped serving on ships, at least for a while.

All of the DS9 characters will be returnable in some form or other.

Crossovers are TRICKY. Not impossible, but tricky. I can't use an argument that says, "'Relics' sucked," because you may not think that. But in MY OPINION, not all Star Trek crossovers have worked.

Some have. Riker's appearance in the first VOY episode with Q ("Q3"?) was perfect. To me, "Unification" was great, because there were compelling reasons to introduce Spock into the plot. In addition, by airing the TNG episode "Sarek", the writers set up the fact that Sarek (and by extension Spock) are still relevant parts of the Trek universe, and did so in a way that was completely true to both Sarek and the TNG characters. And I rather liked Bashir's appearance in "Birthright", because--once again--it had a perfectly believable explanation.

What can make crossovers unrealistic--and makes Trek episodes and films seem like comic books--is when either (a) the reason or (b) the mechanism for bringing the two or more elements together isn't believable OR compelling. I think it's safe to say that a large number of Trekkers were dissatisfied with Generations. In that movie, the problem was both the reason and the mechanism. The Nexus was the mechanism for bringing Kirk into Picard's time; however, as the object of Soren's desire, it was also the reason why Picard needed Kirk's assistance to defeat Soren. The Nexus was, IMHO, a lousy idea, and almost too over-the-top and fantasy-based for a Trek film, and because of its dual nature (mech. and reason) it impeached the credibility of the crossover. Furthermore, since Picard needed to defeat only ONE man, all he really needed was a big guy with a great right cross. The necessity of bringing Kirk into the plan for what turns out to be nothing more than a fistfight is forced, at best. (Yeah, you can argue that Kirk was already in the Nexus whether Picard needed him or not, but I maintain that the ENTIRE Nexus concept, Kirk's "death" onboard 1701-B, and all that was invented SOLELY for the purposes of the crossover. Therefore, this argument is invalid.)

"Trials and Tribble-ations" is another example. This ep was full of a lot of great scenes. However, the overall crossover theme was a little forced. While one can't argue with the mechanism (the Bajoran orbs have been part of the DS9 mythology since Day One), the REASON (Arne Darvin's need for revenge and his somewhat "Bond villain"-esque bomb plot) was a little forced. What cancelled this out for the most part was that, as noted, this ep was not a true crossover, but the TOS elements were for the most part a backdrop to the DS9 story. There were no material interactions between TOS and DS9 characters. (Plus, it was a blast to see DS9 people inserted INTO an old TOS ep!)

There is one other problem with a crossover. The name implies that one group "crosses over" into another group's world (even if both are part of the same universe). So, unless both worlds are very similar and are expounded in similar formats, one element might very well be "a fish out of water."

IMHO, this is what went wrong with "Relics". The mechanism (the transporter jury-rigging) and the reason (survival!) were compelling and believable, esp. when one remembers that the Miracle Worker was involved. BUT there was this third issue. While we can understand that Scotty and La Forge were equals in terms of knowledge and skill, the "physicist-engineer" didn't emerge until TNG. As Chief Eng. aboard NCC-1701, Scott sped up the ship by shoveling more coal into the furnace and fixed problems with a pipe wrench. Having him trade technobabble back and forth with La Forge was a tad unbelievable (even though that's how he ALWAYS should have been portrayed from the beginning). Same with a DS9- crossover. Bringing Odo and Bashir on the Enterprise to solve a problem might work in terms of mechanism and reason, but both the drastically different setting (station v. starship) and the different format (TNG's mostly standalone eps. v. DS9's serialized eps.) would leave the DS9 folks at a disadvantage.

Jesse, the VOY episode you are thinking of is Death Wish(VOY).

Thanks Scott.

Well, it appears that I completely failed in my attempt to explain why DS9 would be difficult to turn into a movie. Please ignore EVERYTHING I said in the earlier post, Luigi, and let me start over from the beginning.

TOS and TNG were set up as open-ended series: their goal, their mission, was to "explore strange new worlds." This is a goal that can never be exhausted in this universe; thus, there will always be new worlds to explore.

DS9 and VOY were set up with specific goals in mind. With DS9, it was to show how Sisko would become the Emissary of the Prophets (primarily), and for VOY it was something so prosaic as 'How do we get home?' Both shows accomplished their goals; it is thus difficult to retool them into movies.

Think of the X-Files in seasons 8 and 9: many, MANY XF fans believe that the show ended after "Requiem" (the season 7 finale) and that everything afterwards was something different. And they are right (imho). That show was set up with two purposes: (1) to find out what happened to Mulder's sister Samantha and (2) to discover the truth behind the government conspiracy to cover up the existence of extraterrestrials. By the end of S7 both goals had been accomplished; this left the show to twist in the wind the remaining two seasons before it was mercifully put to death in a conclusion that satisfied only 1 out of 5 XF fans.

Now, DS9 and VOY were both ended after their primary goals had been fulfilled. Along the way, subgoals were set up, and some were met and some were not. BUT--the shows accomplished the purposes that they were set out to accomplish. How could a movie be made out of DS9 when the Emissary's role has been explained? It would have to be a complete departure from what TPTB previously established. And THERE is where the problem lies, as I originally tried to point out.

What possible plot could be in a DS9 movie? After 5 seasons of the Dominion (the 'showdown' in S3, the Klingon War in S4, the buildup to Armageddon and the politicking in S5, and the full-out war in the last two seasons), can any CONFLICT or THREAT be a good subject? DS9 effectively removed the Breen, the Dominion, and the Cardassians as potential threats to the Federation. With Nemesis' shoddy handling of the Romulans, who's left to be the aggressors? The Borg? Well, VOY really wore them to death and turned them from the penultimate enemies into a laughingstock race. Plus, would DS9 really be the appropriate venue for a Borg episode. (Yeah, Sisko's loss of Jennifer, but that's going back to square one.)

All right, how about an archvillain? Well, we've had Soren from Generations, the Baku/Sona/whoever leader played by F. Murray Abraham from Insurrection, and Shinzon from Nemesis. None were exactly awe-inspiring. Do we believe that "fourth try's the charm" and hope that TPTB will knock one out of the park this time??

I didn't mean to say that there's no possible material for a DS9 movie. I just think that the show was not of the open-ended style needed to introduce a compelling villain/antagonist into the arena.

Jesse, the point you make is a dead-on solid one, I’ll give you that. The fact that DS9 had a more finite arc as it was conceived, and that it completed that arc does mean that they would have to start largely—but not necessarily entirely—from scratch. But just because they can’t continue the series’ arc, doesn’t mean they can’t build a new one from it.

Jesse: What possible plot could be in a DS9 movie? After 5 seasons of the Dominion (the 'showdown' in S3, the Klingon War in S4, the buildup to Armageddon and the politicking in S5, and the full-out war in the last two seasons), can any CONFLICT or THREAT be a good subject?
Luigi Novi: OF COURSE it can. All it takes is a good writer who can look at it, and FIND something good. That’s what good writers do. The problem with this type of naysaying is that you and I are coming from the POV of people who don’t look at things the way writers do. Good writers have the inherent ability and the training to look at what they’re given, and invent possibilities.

Look at it this way: You point out that all five pieces of the Plot Pie have been used. A good writer refuses to concede that there are only five pieces. He/she invents pieces 6, 7, and 8, and if he executes them well, you’re there in the theater/living room saying, "Wow, that’s a good idea!" You and I aren’t writers, so certain plot ideas don’t occur to us that we later enjoy in a movie/episode.

First lets’ start with motive: Perhaps someone in the provisional Cardassian in charge of rebuilding the Cardassia Union—maybe Garak—is afraid that while Cardassia Prime will be rebuilt, that its annexed worlds have been lost during the War, and that retaking them will be difficult, and that the Cardassian Union will not be restored, leaving the Cardassian people with nothing more than their home planet, which will leave them vulnerable to the Klingon Empire, the Romulan Empire, etc. Perhaps the Breen Confederacy isn’t too happy about giving over all those soldiers and ships, and getting nothing in return after the Female Founder suddenly decided to surrender. Perhaps the Tzenkethi or the Tholians will try carving up the Cardassian properties. Hell, maybe the Breen already took certain Cardassian properties in the armistice signed at the end of the war because of this, and Garak wants them back.

Then there’s the plot: What does Garak do to fix this? He tries to destabilize the Breen Confederacy and blame it on the Bajorans, perhaps? Or the Federation? Perhaps he decides to enter the wormhole to ask the Prophets to put things right? Maybe he finds another imprisoned Pah Wraith, and smuggles it into the wormhole, and that Pah Wraith manages to not to take over the Celestial Temple entirely, the way the one in The Assignment did, but manages to hole out in a little corner of the Temple to affect certain machinations? Maybe give Garak some type of power? There are loads of possibilities for this main plot, as well as subplots. Perhaps the Defiant, or the Enterprise, or the Voyager has to journey to Cardassian Space, or Breen space to help uncover the plot, or maintain the peace, while Chancellor Martok is just outside of Cardassian space, chomping at the bit to carve up what he feels is rightfully the Klingon Empire’s, as Worf tries to convince him not to. Perhaps the story will ultimately end the way The Die is Cast ended: there will not be full-blown war with the Federation, but Garak and Bashir’s relationship will now enter into a new stage.

Lastly, theme and character: What would the movie be about on a more fundamental level? Well, Garak is one of, if not THE best supporting character on DS9, and written well, he was always interesting, compelling, and had great lines. Think about it: It’s perfectly logical for him to act purely out of his own self-interest, and in the interests of Cardassia, and to abandon any friendship with Bashir if need be. He certainly didn’t seem all cheery toward Bashir at the end of What You Leave Behind, and yet, we’ve almost NEVER seen Garak as a pure enemy of our guys, except in the mirror universe. Isn’t time for him to show his true colors? Perhaps Bashir is drawn into the plot because of his relationship to Garak, and it becomes a test of wills/personalities between the brilliantly and frighteningly conniving former spy, versus the seemingly naïve doctor with the genetically enhanced intellect, as they try to outwit one another, and Bashir tries to uncover Garak’s plans. Perhaps the mutants from Statistical Improbabilities are in the movie too. Perhaps Bashir’s lover, (maybe wife by now?) Dax is there to observe how all this is affecting Julian, and serves as his rock and his counterpoint as Bashir laments his lost friendship with Garak, and how he must now be forced to think of Garak as his enemy.

The possibilities are endless. Will any of this happen? Nope. But could it? Sure.

Jesse: DS9 effectively removed the Breen, the Dominion, and the Cardassians as potential threats to the Federation.
Luigi Novi: No, it didn’t. Nothing catastrophic happened to either the Breen or the Dominion. The Dominion signed an armistice with the Federation, and the Great Link is by now probably healed, and the Breen, having entered the war in only the fifth-to-last episode of the series, probably accumulated only minimal losses. And by now, both the Cardassians and the Dominion may have rebuilt their military.

Jesse: With Nemesis' shoddy handling of the Romulans, who's left to be the aggressors?
Luigi Novi: Why does the shoddy handling of characters by one movie mean that a better-written subsequent one can’t use them? Besides, the Romulans were barely used in Nemesis. The main villain was a human clone mentored by a Reman.

Jesse: All right, how about an archvillain? Well, we've had Soran from Generations, the Baku/Sona/whoever leader played by F. Murray Abraham from Insurrection, and Shinzon from Nemesis. None were exactly awe-inspiring.
Luigi Novi: No one writer has written every episode and movie in Trek, and even the writers of some of the best ones wrote clunkers. The writing of each ep or movie should be judged individually, and on that basis, whether past villains were badly written has no bearing on whether a new one would be.

Jesse: Do we believe that "fourth try's the charm" and hope that TPTB will knock one out of the park this time??
Luigi Novi: I believe that a good writer is the "charm," not how many times a new TNG movie villain has been attempted. Remember, we’re talking about a DS9 movie. It stands to reason that the first writers to have a crack at writing one would be those who worked on the series: Ira Steven Behr, Ronald D. Moore, Robert Hewitt Wolfe, etc. Could they created a new villain, or use one from the series? Sure.

Jesse: I didn't mean to say that there's no possible material for a DS9 movie. I just think that the show was not of the open-ended style needed to introduce a compelling villain/antagonist into the arena.
Luigi Novi: But you don’t need an open-ended series style to introduce a new villain, nor for that matter, do you need a new villain. In addition to the aforementioned Garak, the mutants from Statistical Improbabilities could make an appearance as supporting characters, (perhaps Garak hires them to outthink Bashir because they know how Bashir thinks?), as could Gaila, perhaps because he’s supplying arms to Garak. The possibilities are endless.

It's not a matter of whether a good story can be made. It's a simple matter of whether anyone would go see it. All of the fans of DS9 would go see it, but no one else would.

DS9 had a highly developed plot. You would most likely have to know quite a bit about it before you went to see the movie. (Unless the script contained extensive background exposition but most audiences don't like that)

You don't really have to know anything before sitting down to watch a TNG or TOS movie. The plot is simple: Explorers are on a starship, and they have to stop someone from doing bad things.

This is why I've never watched any of the Babylon 5 movies that are shown on TV. I've watched Babylon 5 maybe three times in my life so I figured that I'd be lost trying to watch a movie. My bet is that most other people would feel this way too about a DS9 movie too.

Of course TPTB could choose to ignore any backstory of DS9 and just tell a story that involves the station and DS9 characters. (i.e.: Villain shows up and wants to blow up the station but the heroes stop him just in time)

But then they'd probably anger the fans of DS9 who wanted some development in the DS9 universe.

It's really a no win situation in my opinion. DS9 had a pretty good ending. It's probably best for everyone if no DS9 movie were ever made.

TUE

It's not a matter of whether a good story can be made. It's a simple matter of whether anyone would go see it.
Luigi Novi: What, the two have nothing to do with one another? Obviously, whether anyone went to go see it would depend in part on whether it was a good story.

As for backstory, there are many things that could be done for this. Exposition is one. Perhaps promoting a website with background material for newcomers would also be helpful, much as was done with The Blair Witch Project. That movie's website was integral to the hype and financial success of that film, and that movie sucked.

It's not a matter of whether a good story can be made. It's a simple matter of whether anyone would go see it. All of the fans of DS9 would go see it, but no one else would.

Why wouldn't they? Why does anyone even go see a movie? I think, with proper marketing, people would go see it.

DS9 had a highly developed plot. You would most likely have to know quite a bit about it before you went to see the movie. (Unless the script contained extensive background exposition but most audiences don't like that)

I don't agree that audiences need to know all the details of the entire series. Exposition can be handled well and often indirectly. Let's consider, say, a movie focussing on the aftermath of the Dominion War in Cardassia. The devastation could be conveyed with a tiny bit of dialogue and some expansive visuals. There's really no need for digressions into detailed exposition like in a Victor Hugo novel. All it takes is some imagination.

And now I'll be going on digression:
One thing that really bothers me about Star Trek movies is the conventionality of the storytelling, even when compared to the better episodes of the series. The plots are always terribly linear and, First Contact excepted, such devices as flashbacks, voiceovers, interweaving narratives, and the like are never used. Contrast this with some of the best DS9 episodes, including Necessary Evil, In the Pale Moonlight, and The Visitor. Not that such cinematic techniques will help a bad story, but I would like to see something less conventional.

Anyway, in terms of exposition, Emissary, for example, has a straightforward prologue introducing the backstory of the Battle of Wolf 359. They give us some text and then we plunge right into the battle. It was quick and effective. Something like that, introducing the war, would work perfectly in a movie.

Why no DS9 movie?

The franchise would be dead & buried by the time they started it...with the way Berman & the others are going.

Wow, this is a good debate! Friendly yet heated!

Luigi, I don't dispute that there are possibilities. What concerns me is, after having taken DS9 SO HIGH, to the point of interstellar war, almost to the "universal Armageddon", can a plot about 24th-century Radical Reconstruction be done? You are absolutely correct in stating that a good writer could do it. But this is Star Trek. We CANNOT ignore the fact that, despite the differences in writing staff, all of the series (TV and their movie extensions) have to pass under the approval of, oh, say one or two people at the top of the franchise. Look at the excellent writing quality in TNG, and then look at how it sharply declined in the movies. And look at the level of control exerted by -certain people- during the production of Nemesis.

It would take phenomenal writing to make a good DS9 movie. After the last 2 NextGen films, after Voyager, even after watching Enterprise start out well but start to lag after a while, I seriously doubt that Trek has the ability to do the movie properly. If I'm wrong, say so, but....

No, I agree with you there.

Here's a question: would it have been better if TPTB had NOT concluded the Dominion War at the end of the series but had left it open for a movie?

A good story does not automatically mean that you will have a successful movie.

I've read reviews of the movie "Gangs of New York". All the critics love this movie. Either Ebert or Roeper (I forget which) had it listed as their favorite movie of the entire year. But it's not doing that great in the box office.

Certain things draw people to the movies. It isn't always a great story.

TUE

A good story does not automatically mean that you will have a successful movie.

True.

Certain things draw people to the movies. It isn't always a great story.

So should we tolerate bad stories since they might be successful? I fail to see the point of your straw-man argument - would a DS9 movie succeed better if it was simply mediocre?

Jesse: Here's a question: would it have been better if TPTB had NOT concluded the Dominion War at the end of the series but had left it open for a movie?
Luigi Novi: In my opinion, no. The war was the story that I think the creators had intended all along. I think the whole point of DS9 was to take the supposedly peaceful and enlightened premise of the Federation, and test it. See what it’s like when it has to go to war. I saw Bashir’s question to Sisko in Past Tense partI about whether humanity had truly matured, and whether it would maintain that maturity in the face of catastrophe or disaster, or plummet into tyranny like the Cardassians, as emblematic of the series as a whole.

TUE: A good story does not automatically mean that you will have a successful movie.
Luigi Novi: True, hence my statement, " I think, with proper marketing, people would go see it." But much of my comments thus far have centered largely on that issue, because Jesse and others have asserted that writing the story would be the main, if not a large obstacle.

JoshG: I fail to see the point of your straw-man argument - would a DS9 movie succeed better if it was simply mediocre?
Luigi Novi: Whoa, hold on a minute, Josh, I think TUE makes a valid point, and I don’t think he was using a straw man argument.

Luigi has gotten my point exactly: the writing is the challenge. I mean, it is with ANY media, but the problem is that imho DS9 became a highly-focused show. It had a lot of plot threads going, but most of them were driving together towards a single, inexhorable conclusion. After 5 years--or 7, depending on your viewpoint--of such focus, it would take an enormously engrossing story to make a movie good. And while it is certainly doable, it seems to be a task beyond the abilities of the current writing and producing staff of ST.

But let's say there *was* going to be a DS9 movie. I think another large obstacle is that Deep Space Nine, by this time, will be...what? Will it be a Starfleet installation? Or will it become a purely Bajoran facility? With Bajor in the Federation, is there any need for Starfleet to still act as caretakers for the station?

However, on the other hand, Bajor might be kicked off the station. After "The Emissary" (Episode 1), the station was no longer in orbit of Bajor but was at the mouth (?) of the wormhole. If the UFP is anything like the United States, control over and jurisdiction of "interstate" (in this case, interstellar) lines of commerce falls to the central government. It seems likely that, Bajoran space or not, DS9 will become a purely Federation facility.

Jesse: Good villains don't develop in 45 minutes.

Luigi Novi: Really? So every original movie with a villain that didn’t have some type of prequel (or one the viewer hadn’t seen)—The Silence of the Lambs, The Usual Suspects, Star Wars, Cape Fear, Seven, FAILED ENTIRELY because there wasn’t some episode of a TV show where that character appeared first? Are you saying that Khan fails as a villain if someone who never saw Space Seed watched ST II? I can assure you that I had never seen the episode when I first saw the movie, and Khan was an EXCELLENT villain. I also thought Christopher Plummer’s Chang was a cool.

For that matter, if good villains don’t develop in 45 minutes, does that mean NONE of the Trek EPISODES had good villains, particularly the modern ones, given that they’re only 42 minutes long?



Sorry to quote, but even though this is old, I'm going to resurrect it so I can defend myself.

You are 100% correct in that good villains can be created immediately. However, they are RARELY simply created. Kevin Spacey's character from "Seven", for instance...yes, he was invented in this movie, but the IDEA of a psychotic killer who commits heinous crimes is a cultural archetype that we all fear and understand. Therefore, Spacey's guy is not so much an Instant Villain (TM) as an incarnation of something familiar. While a writer might invent a good villain, that villain is usually of a type that we can identify with and "fill in the holes" so that minimal exposition is needed.

However, some villains are simply created out of thin air. When a villain is novel enough, the shock value makes him (or her or it) effective enough that we can accept him as 'good.' Hannibal Lechter, for instance--while he certainly could fit aspects of the 'archetypal villain' described above, he was shocking enough that we could accept him as an outstanding villain.

In summary, then, there are two ways of developing a villain: (1) gradually, over time, or (2) immediately. The latter can be accomplished, but it requires that the villain conform to an accepted archetype that is perceived to be good villain material (slobby guys who rape women and murder people for sport usually work) or be so radically different that the sheer surprise carries the day.

When we look at the villains seen throughout Star Trek, the good ones, who comes to mind? Certainly Khan does. But let's look at it this way: would Khan be as popular as he is if he had never been brought back for STII? Would "Space Seed" still shine as much? Conversely, would STII have been the arguably best Trek movie of all time if the villain had been someone who the viewers had no knowledge of? There is something to be said for a villain that is developed over time.

Star Trek has an additional layer of "cultural" expectation to adhere to: namely, the fans' knowledge of the ST universe. While a general audience might appreciate a good film with a totally random villain, ST fans tend to expect to see familiar faces. Not all the time, but quite a bit. This heritage can be for the good. You mentioned General Chang. Well, what made Chang so effective was that, as a Klingon, we had a great deal of information / "backstory" about him. He himself was a great villain, but the "heritage" served to enhance him. In contrast, the Berman/Braga "Alien o' the Week" raises questions like, "Why don't we ever see the Romulans? I'd like a movie about them?" followed by "That movie wasn't about the Romulans! It was about yet ANOTHER made-up race with a made-up leader in which the Romulans served as background material."

Well, before the debate starts back up in earnest, can I interject with the note that we're over 100K?

Thanks Sparrow.