[DS9] Lynch's Spoiler Review: "Past Tense, Part I"
Timothy W. Lynch
for DS9's "Past Tense, Part I". If your travel plans do not include
receiving such information, please disembark at the rear of the cabin.
In brief: 'Sokay? 'Salright. 'Svery all right.
======
Quick summary: Due to a transporter accident, Sisko, Bashir and
Dax find themselves in early 21st-century San Francisco at the cusp of
a pivotal moment in Earth (and thus Federation) history.
======
Although I'm still a bit frustrated by how vigorously DS9 is avoiding
virtually all the political wrangling that was the heart and soul of
the show last year, I have to admit that "Past Tense, Part I" was
terrific. Yes, there are certainly nitpicks that come to mind, some
of which taste a little sour on a second viewing -- but nothing of
such earth-shattering consequence to overshadow a cautionary tale that
was rather gripping ... and all too plausible.
This is definitely the single most direct commentary on the times _as
a commentary on the times_ I think I've seen in Trek history.
Although Trek is no stranger to pointed morality plays in any era
("Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" comes rather strongly to mind in
TOS as one example, and TNG had "Symbiosis" and "The Outcast" among
many others), they've generally been done allegorically. Not so with
"Past Tense": by setting itself a scant three decades from now, it's
"telling" us something about our current situation very bluntly.
I'm not sure if that's a style I'd want to see on Trek routinely, but
in this case it worked extremely well for me. In particular, even
though we basically had Bashir spelling out the moral for us with his
line "Causing people to suffer because you hate them is terrible, but
causing people to suffer because you have forgotten how to _care_
... that's really hard to understand," it worked for me. Perhaps
that's because I believe very firmly that his point is well taken; our
society is getting meaner by the day, but more through inertia than
anything else, since that seems to be "the way to go" right now.
Perhaps not.
In any case, though, the depiction of San Francisco circa 2024 was a
frighteningly plausible one. While some of the external trappings of
society have changed -- "Interface" accounts, terminals everywhere,
and the fact that the U.S. had finally gone metric :-), for instance
-- many of them had not, and none of the _personal_ things had
changed. The Sanctuary districts, while ostensibly a refuge for
people with nowhere else to turn, is clearly a way to let everyone
else forget about the homeless and the destitute -- and is that really
all that different from walking quickly by a homeless person on the
street to avoid having them ask you for something? Only in its scope
and in the lengths the public as a whole is willing to go to to make
it happen, I'd claim -- and, if you'll forgive me for dwelling on
current events, the passage of California's Proposition 187 last year
and the fashionable talk of orphanages really "being the best thing
for the children" suggests that justification for a Sanctuary program
wouldn't be completely impossible to come by now. As such, this show
resonated for me quite a bit.
Back to the 24th century and the plot for the show. :-) This, perhaps
not surprisingly, is where the nitpicks can come in. Two that come to
mind immediately are the following:
First ... if the entire senior staff has come to Earth to update
Starfleet on the Gamma Quadrant situation, who is running the station?
Quark? Jake? Rom? Morn? Garak? (Granted, some of those could be
fun...) What's more, Sisko left the station undermanned by senior
officers, _and_ went and took the Defiant with him. Were I a Dominion
strategist, I'd be likely to think now was a mighty good time to
cruise on in and take over the station and Bajor, and it would have
been nice to have heard some sort of reference to precautions being
taken.
Second, not at all surprisingly, is the Technobabble Monster [tm],
which was in full force. Granted, nothing O'Brien said was totally
absurd, but it was definitely a case of "okay, Miles, we get the POINT
already!" It's not like time travel has any scientific validity ("as
yet", he said to hedge his bets in case Kip Thorne and cohorts come up
with something strange in the next decade or two :-) ), so this
doesn't need to get "justified" in a plausibility sense, certainly not
any more so than justifying other plot points would be necessary. It
felt a little extraneous, that's all.
The main historical "jeopardy" plot was not a gigantic surprise -- in
fact, Lisa pegged the way the story was going to go as soon as the
explanation of the Bell Riots was made. "They'll somehow end up
contributing to Bell's death, and Sisko will end up becoming Bell,"
she posed as one serious possibility. However, I don't see this as a
problem, particularly since it was only apparent because the show
reminded her of other, similar good stories she'd read or seen (a
JFK-centered "New Twilight Zone" from a few years back being the most
prominent of the lot). Done badly, this idea could have looked
distressingly hokey -- but done right, it's still compelling, and as
far as I'm concerned it _was_ done right. (The death of Bell in
particular was extremely well staged.)
In terms of characterization, I've no complaints. The three regulars
stranded in the past were particularly good; Sisko's brooding and
interest in a "too depressing" period of history seem very realistic
for him, as does Bashir's UNwillingness to think about this particular
part of Earth history and his youthful outrage. As for Dax ... well,
it's hard to believe that this sharp, quick-witted and forceful
character here is the same one we saw "counting the spots" of her
love-of-the-week back in "Meridian" and slithering over Sisko in
"Fascination" -- thank heavens. Almost from the instant Dax woke, she
was the smartest of the three in her behavior, ready to fit in at a
moment's notice until she could figure out what was going on and where
her friends were. This is the best treatment Dax has had all year --
praise to those concerned.
The 21st-century characters, for the most part, were somewhat less
defined, but were still good foils for the regulars to play off of.
The riot's leader, "B.C." (at least, I *think* that's his name, based
on the press release) proved a slight surprise at the end, at least if
he's serious about making an actual "political statement" with his
assault -- given that his portrayal for the rest of the episode was
mostly that of Strutting Thug [tm], if he really has a deeper motive
I'll be pleasantly surprised. As for the rest of the Sanctuary
personnel -- the cops, the social worker, the concerned father --
they're not much defined beyond their identifications above, but
neither do they need to be all *that* much. The show isn't about
them, it's about Sisko and company lost in time, and as long as you
can show the contrast, you're fine.
One exception to that, to some extent, is Chris Brynner, Dax's rescuer
and financial successor to Bill Gates. :-) Although he's generally
meant to be a sympathetic character, it's not clear whether he's going
to completely remain so, or how aware he is of the real problems his
time is facing. Certainly, the fact that he never even *thought* of
Sisko and Bashir being in a Sanctuary district is a telling point;
since, as I said, the Sanctuaries seem to be there so that "problems"
can be forgotten, it's no surprise that he's managed to put them out
of his mind very successfully. Of all the characters I saw in the
21st century, he's the one whose future I'm most interested in seeing.
Speaking of futures, there's also the 24th-century side of things to
consider, though not much. The main function Kira, O'Brien and Odo
served was to let us know exactly what was going on on a "technical"
level and to see the impact Sisko's actions were having on the future.
About the only real action they took was in planning to send search
parties back to look for them -- and to be honest, I'm with Starfleet
there. Given the circumstances, it *is* too risky; or rather, it
*was* until Starfleet up and vanished. Given that occurrence, I
imagine we'll see O'Brien and Kira go back themselves next week.
That's about it for the major points. A few minor ones, then:
-- When Sisko and Bashir were being given instructions on the forms,
it quickly became obvious to me just _which_ organization's
bureaucracy was moved over. That room was clearly a 21st-century DMV.
:-)
-- I liked the reference to "Starfleet temporal displacement policy".
Given the number of times we've seen people splashing around in the
timestreams, it's both amusing and very sensible to see that the Fleet
has tried to standardize the way it deals with such situations.
-- A temporal issue: why was there a delay in 24th-century time
between Sisko et al. vanishing and the future altering? I mean, I
know the *dramatic* reasoning for it -- but in any other Trek
situation like this I can think of ("Yesterday's Enterprise" and "City
on the Edge of Forever", for instance), the future changed
_immediately_ as soon as a party went back. Why not here?
That's about it. To sum up, then:
Plot: Not the most original of ideas, but so what? A good time-travel tale,
and a nice caution. A few minor holes.
Plot Handling: Very nice indeed -- I was riveted.
Characterization: Solid all around.
OVERALL: The first (and hopefully not only) 10 of the season. And
about time, too.
NEXT WEEK:
Resolutions and revolutions.
Tim Lynch (Harvard-Westlake School, Science Dept.)
tly...@alumni.caltech.edu
Why are there so many songs about rainbows, and what's on the other side?
R.I.P. Jim Henson, 1936-1990; we shall never see your like again.
"Our children come to us for answers
Listening for freedom but they don't know the sound"
-- Nanci Griffith, "Time of Inconvenience"
--
Copyright 1995, Timothy W. Lynch. All rights reserved, but feel free to ask...
This article is explicitly prohibited from being used in any off-net
compilation without due attribution and *express written consent of the
author*. Walnut Creek and other CD-ROM distributors, take note.
Jason John Seaver
Timothy W. Lynch <tly...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>WARNING: This article contains large amounts of spoiler information
>for DS9's "Past Tense, Part I". If your travel plans do not include
>receiving such information, please disembark at the rear of the cabin.
>In brief: 'Sokay? 'Salright. 'Svery all right.
To me, disappointing.
>Although I'm still a bit frustrated by how vigorously DS9 is avoiding
>virtually all the political wrangling that was the heart and soul of
>the show last year, I have to admit that "Past Tense, Part I" was
>terrific. Yes, there are certainly nitpicks that come to mind, some
>of which taste a little sour on a second viewing -- but nothing of
>such earth-shattering consequence to overshadow a cautionary tale that
>was rather gripping ... and all too plausible.
>
>This is definitely the single most direct commentary on the times _as
>a commentary on the times_ I think I've seen in Trek history.
Which was what I didn't like. I can see teaching by example. I can
see, even, using an entire episode to make a point. But this, this smacked
of classical Roddenberry club-to-head tactics. One of the things I liked
about DS9 was that there has always been very little in ties to the twentieth
century - the fact that no-one can conclusively say who the Bajorans and
Cardassians are supposed to symbolize is telling-DS9 has always been more
willing to let the viewer draw his/her own conclusions. This episode was
jarring in that respect.
>changed. The Sanctuary districts, while ostensibly a refuge for
>people with nowhere else to turn, is clearly a way to let everyone
>else forget about the homeless and the destitute -- and is that really
>all that different from walking quickly by a homeless person on the
>street to avoid having them ask you for something? Only in its scope
The acceptance of what they're for seemed implausible. Sisko even
labeled them as a "mistake" rather than a "false start"; most ideas like
this in the US (I'd hope - my suburban Maine upbringing may be showing through
here) would tend to be botched efforts to help, whereas this seemed accepted
as an attack from day one.
>Second, not at all surprisingly, is the Technobabble Monster [tm],
>which was in full force. Granted, nothing O'Brien said was totally
>absurd, but it was definitely a case of "okay, Miles, we get the POINT
>already!" It's not like time travel has any scientific validity ("as
>yet", he said to hedge his bets in case Kip Thorne and cohorts come up
>with something strange in the next decade or two :-) ), so this
>doesn't need to get "justified" in a plausibility sense, certainly not
>any more so than justifying other plot points would be necessary. It
>felt a little extraneous, that's all.
Let's get rid of the TNG writers. I gotta wonder how many people
the Romulans and Klingons have lost in time because their landing parties
just didn't show up. Although, this could explain a huge number of the
inconsistancies in how these two groups have been portrayed on the shows over
the past thirty years. :-)
>In terms of characterization, I've no complaints. The three regulars
>stranded in the past were particularly good; Sisko's brooding and
>interest in a "too depressing" period of history seem very realistic
>for him,
Sisko's dignity changed what could have been a cornbally final scene
into a touching one. Sisko's character has been one of overcoming loss and
despair since the beginning, and it made sense that he would take a stand and
with implicit knowledge that it would kill him. That is the sort of scene
Avery Brooks does so well.
>As for Dax ... well, it's hard to believe that this sharp, quick-witted and
>forceful character here is the same one we saw "counting the spots" of her
>love-of-the-week back in "Meridian" and slithering over Sisko in
>"Fascination" -- thank heavens. Almost from the instant Dax woke, she
>was the smartest of the three in her behavior, ready to fit in at a
>moment's notice until she could figure out what was going on and where
>her friends were. This is the best treatment Dax has had all year --
>praise to those concerned.
It was good to see her smart again, I'll agree.
>The riot's leader, "B.C." (at least, I *think* that's his name, based
>on the press release) proved a slight surprise at the end, at least if
>he's serious about making an actual "political statement" with his
>assault -- given that his portrayal for the rest of the episode was
>mostly that of Strutting Thug [tm], if he really has a deeper motive
>I'll be pleasantly surprised.
I took that as an ironical comment - he's interested in extortion,
nothing more, and he's being sarcastic for the benefit of the educated folks
in the room. Fits with the fact that he grew up in the late twentieth/early
twenty-first century - he's got the right sort of ironic cynicism that is
regularly assigned to the so-called "Generation X".
>consider, though not much. The main function Kira, O'Brien and Odo
>served was to let us know exactly what was going on on a "technical"
>level and to see the impact Sisko's actions were having on the future.
>About the only real action they took was in planning to send search
>parties back to look for them
Did anyone have a quick reminder of "Yesterday's Enterprise" when
Bell died and then suddenly O'Brien and Kira were wearing different outfits?
As it turned out, it was something different, but eerie and unsettling. I
wonder if it was intentional.
>-- I liked the reference to "Starfleet temporal displacement policy".
>Given the number of times we've seen people splashing around in the
>timestreams, it's both amusing and very sensible to see that the Fleet
>has tried to standardize the way it deals with such situations.
And, like most Starfleet regulations, it proves naive and ultimately
useless. This won't get picked up (the show's got bigger fish to fry), but
it underscores the "saint in paradise" theme quite nicely. The only real safe
option is to turn a phaser upon yourself and disintegrate, but no way Starfleet
is ever going to implement something like that.
>-- A temporal issue: why was there a delay in 24th-century time
>between Sisko et al. vanishing and the future altering? I mean, I
>know the *dramatic* reasoning for it -- but in any other Trek
>situation like this I can think of ("Yesterday's Enterprise" and "City
>on the Edge of Forever", for instance), the future changed
>_immediately_ as soon as a party went back. Why not here?
My guess is there's some kind of link between Defiant and the
transported crew; that's why there was subjective-time agreement between Sisko
and O'brien's timelines. Heck, it might also have something to do with the
quantum constant mumbo-jumbo that was at work in "Parallels". And who the
heck knows what chronotons do to matter, anyway (I think there are something
like 101 different kinds of base particles in Star Trek, a far cry from our
~6).
Ted McCoy
>for DS9's "Past Tense, Part I". If your travel plans do not include
>receiving such information, please disembark at the rear of the cabin.
>In brief: 'Sokay? 'Salright. 'Svery all right.
Huh?
>======
>Quick summary: Due to a transporter accident, Sisko, Bashir and
>Dax find themselves in early 21st-century San Francisco at the cusp of
>a pivotal moment in Earth (and thus Federation) history.
>======
>
>Although I'm still a bit frustrated by how vigorously DS9 is avoiding
>virtually all the political wrangling that was the heart and soul of
>the show last year,
Yup.
>I have to admit that "Past Tense, Part I" was
>terrific. Yes, there are certainly nitpicks that come to mind, some
>of which taste a little sour on a second viewing -- but nothing of
>such earth-shattering consequence to overshadow a cautionary tale that
>was rather gripping ... and all too plausible.
Yup again.
>Back to the 24th century and the plot for the show. :-) This, perhaps
>not surprisingly, is where the nitpicks can come in. Two that come to
>mind immediately are the following:
>
>First ... if the entire senior staff has come to Earth to update
>Starfleet on the Gamma Quadrant situation, who is running the station?
>Quark? Jake? Rom? Morn? Garak? (Granted, some of those could be
>fun...) What's more, Sisko left the station undermanned by senior
>officers, _and_ went and took the Defiant with him. Were I a Dominion
>strategist, I'd be likely to think now was a mighty good time to
>cruise on in and take over the station and Bajor, and it would have
>been nice to have heard some sort of reference to precautions being
>taken.
Were I a Dominion strategist, I would have taken the station in the season
premiere. And yeah, I agree with your point.
>Second, not at all surprisingly, is the Technobabble Monster [tm],
>which was in full force. Granted, nothing O'Brien said was totally
>absurd, but it was definitely a case of "okay, Miles, we get the POINT
>already!" It's not like time travel has any scientific validity ("as
>yet", he said to hedge his bets in case Kip Thorne and cohorts come up
>with something strange in the next decade or two :-) ), so this
>doesn't need to get "justified" in a plausibility sense, certainly not
>any more so than justifying other plot points would be necessary. It
>felt a little extraneous, that's all.
This is the worst technobabble I can ever remember hearing on DS9. And really
all the technobabble did was serve as the same plot device that the Guardian
gateway thing did in TOS. I would have much preferred to have had, say, Q
be behind the whole thing. Not only is Q more fun to listen to than
technobabble, but also that would have fit in surprisingly well with some of
what he was doing in the TNG finale. (Actually I suppose it's possible
that it'll turn out that the "singularity" that caused the accident was sent
by Q, but that doesn't seem like the sort of thing DS9 would do.)
>The main historical "jeopardy" plot was not a gigantic surprise -- in
>fact, Lisa pegged the way the story was going to go as soon as the
>explanation of the Bell Riots was made. "They'll somehow end up
>contributing to Bell's death, and Sisko will end up becoming Bell,"
>she posed as one serious possibility. However, I don't see this as a
>problem, particularly since it was only apparent because the show
>reminded her of other, similar good stories she'd read or seen (a
>JFK-centered "New Twilight Zone" from a few years back being the most
>prominent of the lot). Done badly, this idea could have looked
>distressingly hokey -- but done right, it's still compelling, and as
>far as I'm concerned it _was_ done right. (The death of Bell in
>particular was extremely well staged.)
I was amazed how powerful that scene was, for me anyway. Anybody know who
directed this? The music helped a lot too.
>In terms of characterization, I've no complaints. The three regulars
>stranded in the past were particularly good; Sisko's brooding and
>interest in a "too depressing" period of history seem very realistic
>for him, as does Bashir's UNwillingness to think about this particular
>part of Earth history and his youthful outrage. As for Dax ... well,
>it's hard to believe that this sharp, quick-witted and forceful
>character here is the same one we saw "counting the spots" of her
>love-of-the-week back in "Meridian" and slithering over Sisko in
>"Fascination" -- thank heavens. Almost from the instant Dax woke, she
>was the smartest of the three in her behavior, ready to fit in at a
>moment's notice until she could figure out what was going on and where
>her friends were. This is the best treatment Dax has had all year --
>praise to those concerned.
Well, I agree that this is the best treatment we've seen of Dax in a while,
but I was still disappointed by it. Yes, she did a good job of fitting in --
but I would have liked her to have done something more active in trying to
solve her situation, instead of just lurking in the background. But I guess,
given the dangers of screwing up the future, it makes sense that she would
want to keep as low a profile as possible.
>One exception to that, to some extent, is Chris Brynner, Dax's rescuer
>and financial successor to Bill Gates. :-) Although he's generally
>meant to be a sympathetic character, it's not clear whether he's going
>to completely remain so, or how aware he is of the real problems his
>time is facing. Certainly, the fact that he never even *thought* of
>Sisko and Bashir being in a Sanctuary district is a telling point;
>since, as I said, the Sanctuaries seem to be there so that "problems"
>can be forgotten, it's no surprise that he's managed to put them out
>of his mind very successfully. Of all the characters I saw in the
>21st century, he's the one whose future I'm most interested in seeing.
I wonder if he knows more about Dax than he's saying. It seems like a bit
of a coincidence that somebody in his position would just happen to be the
one to encounter Dax. And we don't know what happened to the communicators
that were stolen from Sisko and Bashir, do we? But maybe I'm jumping to
conclusions.
>Speaking of futures, there's also the 24th-century side of things to
>consider, though not much. The main function Kira, O'Brien and Odo
>served was to let us know exactly what was going on on a "technical"
>level and to see the impact Sisko's actions were having on the future.
>About the only real action they took was in planning to send search
>parties back to look for them -- and to be honest, I'm with Starfleet
>there. Given the circumstances, it *is* too risky; or rather, it
>*was* until Starfleet up and vanished. Given that occurrence, I
>imagine we'll see O'Brien and Kira go back themselves next week.
Or they could just sit around for another hour, trade more technobabble
(actually O'Brien gets the technobabble lines and Kira just stares at him
blankly), and act relieved when the Federation reappears.
>-- A temporal issue: why was there a delay in 24th-century time
>between Sisko et al. vanishing and the future altering? I mean, I
>know the *dramatic* reasoning for it -- but in any other Trek
>situation like this I can think of ("Yesterday's Enterprise" and "City
>on the Edge of Forever", for instance), the future changed
>_immediately_ as soon as a party went back. Why not here?
That's interesting. Perhaps the time travel took a while, and Sisko, Bashir,
and Dax didn't actually reach the past until the moment the Federation
vanished, from the Defiant's point of view. Or, more likely, it might just
be a plothole.
>Plot: Not the most original of ideas, but so what? A good time-travel tale,
> and a nice caution. A few minor holes.
It's disappointing to see DS9 boldly going where Trek has gone before like
this, especially considering how much new territory it could be covering
(and how much new territory it was covering last season). But I actually
thought this episode was very good so I can't complain.
>Plot Handling: Very nice indeed -- I was riveted.
>Characterization: Solid all around.
>
>OVERALL: The first (and hopefully not only) 10 of the season. And
>about time, too.
>
>NEXT WEEK:
>Resolutions and revolutions.
And then comes Voyager...
Ted
Todd Horowitz
>Given the number of times we've seen people splashing around in the
>timestreams, it's both amusing and very sensible to see that the Fleet
>has tried to standardize the way it deals with such situations.
If Starfleet has a temporal displacement policy, then its obviously
not just the _Enterprise_ crew which ends up jumping about in time. I'm
enourmously reassured that STARFLET has adopted an enlightened policy of
non-interference, but is it at all likely that everyone else has similar
policies? Why haven't renegade Klingons or ambitious Romulans been diving back
in time to destabilize the Federation? After all, all it takes is a ship with
warp drive, as STIV proved. You'd think Starfleet would have to have a
whole division of people runnning around the past foiling various plots to
change history... or is this turning into a Fritz Leiber novel?
-todd
Marshall Ryan Maresca
> -- A temporal issue: why was there a delay in 24th-century time
> between Sisko et al. vanishing and the future altering? I mean, I
> know the *dramatic* reasoning for it -- but in any other Trek
> situation like this I can think of ("Yesterday's Enterprise" and "City
> on the Edge of Forever", for instance), the future changed
> _immediately_ as soon as a party went back. Why not here?
Probably because this is the first to use the concept of the Absolute
Now, something which makes Time Travel plots alot easier to wrap your
nuerons around. From the Defiant's point of view, they are in the
present, always moving forward. From Sisko & co.'s, they are in the past,
moving forward at the same rate. The crew on the Defiant are in the
"Observer" role, so they will see the effects of changes AS THEY HAPPEN to
the people in the past. This is because Sisko and such have as much free
will as anyone else. It is not predestined from when they went back that
they WOULD do something that will change things.
This Time Travel concpet was used a lot on Quantum Leap... Al often
would note changes in history once Sam affected them. Take (for example)
the episode "Leap for Lisa" , in which Sam, for a short time, seriously
changes Al's future. This caused Al to vanish, but only when the chances
of this change were at 100%.
This is all, of course, because Time Travel is quite sticky business,
and you should leave it to the trained professionals.
-Marshall Ryan Maresca
Amos Yung
I feel very differently about this. This is not hitting you over the head
with what they think is clever metaphor. The writers are telling you
FACE to FACE what they are trying to say. Bill Gates-compatiable himself
went to high school in the 90's, that is a direct reference of OUR time.
Star Trek is well known for making social statments and this is as
bold as they can possibly get. No "what if", no "lets suppose". A story
with a point as sharp as a razor to make.
And then there is the issue itself. It might not be as "in" as the gay-right
theme, or as controversial as the abortion issue, but it seems to be
one of the thing that defines the future of a society.
I, for one, applaud the writer having the guts to take such a stand. That of
course begs the question: What the heck got into them? :^)
>>In terms of characterization, I've no complaints. The three regulars
>>stranded in the past were particularly good; Sisko's brooding and
>>interest in a "too depressing" period of history seem very realistic
>>for him,
>
> Sisko's dignity changed what could have been a cornbally final scene
>into a touching one. Sisko's character has been one of overcoming loss and
>despair since the beginning, and it made sense that he would take a stand and
>with implicit knowledge that it would kill him. That is the sort of scene
>Avery Brooks does so well.
While I still prefer TNG over DS9, I have always thought the Brooks' portrayal of
Sisko is absolutely terrific. Well, wait till you see part two.... I think Patrick
Stewart finally got some real competition as to who is the best actor in ST.
Brian Eirik Coe
>jse...@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Jason John Seaver) wrote:
>>In article <3en9c9$3...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
>>Timothy W. Lynch <tly...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>>>WARNING: This article contains large amounts of spoiler information
>>>for DS9's "Past Tense, Part I". If your travel plans do not include
>>>receiving such information, please disembark at the rear of the cabin.
>>
>
>
>>>In terms of characterization, I've no complaints. The three regulars
>>>stranded in the past were particularly good; Sisko's brooding and
>>>interest in a "too depressing" period of history seem very realistic
>>>for him,
>>
>> Sisko's dignity changed what could have been a cornbally final scene
>>into a touching one. Sisko's character has been one of overcoming loss and
>>despair since the beginning, and it made sense that he would take a stand and
>>with implicit knowledge that it would kill him. That is the sort of scene
>>Avery Brooks does so well.
>
>While I still prefer TNG over DS9, I have always thought the Brooks' portrayal of
>Sisko is absolutely terrific. Well, wait till you see part two.... I think Patrick
>Stewart finally got some real competition as to who is the best actor in ST.
>
>
I feel that Brooks is at his best when he is acting with
Sisko-in-a-crisis. Somehow, his style lends itself to giving orders,
making quick choices, barking commands. Those first scenes of the sereis
on the Saratoga are a great example, as are many scenes of battles,
danger, etc. He's a little reaching when he does a quiet, less action
orientted scene, but he is definitly getting better.
--
Brian Eirik Coe * "The hotel of your mind has many vacancies"
Optometrist-in-Training * -Yakko Warners Fortune Cookie
"Are you pondering what I'm pondering?" -The Brain, Animaniacs
"It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent." -Q, ST:TNG