#i feel like i got 80% of the plot and lore already without ever engaging with the actual material lol

[allegedly-human-uwu]

Existing on tumblr the past few weeks

[entergamingxp]

Assassin’s Creed Valhalla reshapes the series’ RPG storytelling by giving you a Viking settlement • Eurogamer.net

Ubisoft knows what you think of Vikings: their reputation in history as bloodthirsty invaders, interested in Britain only to pillage its riches. And so, in today’s reveal trailer for Assassin’s Creed Valhalla, this version of history is addressed head on. You see Vikings and their families spending some quiet, quality time together back home in Norway, where Valhalla’s saga begins, and that things weren’t so (Alfred the) Great in Britain either – where the majority of Valhalla actually takes place.

Of course, this first trailer barely scratches the surface of the game – and indeed how its portrayal of Vikings, Saxons and various other groups living in Britain will actually look (though actual footage arrives very soon). Will good old King Alf really be a moustache-twirling pantomime villain? No, lead producer Julien Laferrière assures me, as we settle down to talk Valhalla in detail. Will all Vikings be good guys? No, again. But what seems certain is how Valhalla has been entirely shaped by this principle Vikings were not only invaders but settlers as well. They were ferocious warriors, yes, but also a group of people with a rich culture, living gods and huge mythology – all of which Valhalla will explore in detail. Central to all that will be a new village settlement hub – a home for main character Eivor and their comrades, a familiar starting point for adventures and a place you’ll see your decisions play out.

Loot and village.

It’s another adjustment for a series well past its early transition into RPG territory (Origins) and already able to boast about real mastery of the genre (Odyssey), one which feels like it will fill some of the few remaining blanks in that latter game’s formula. So, instead of embarking on a never-ending journey to defog all the map, Valhalla’s narrative is being built around your settlement, and through it. “It’s your own Viking village you’ll see prosper and grow, and which your clan mates will live in,” Laferrière tells me via video call. “It’s at the centre of our quests and the centre of the decisions you make. We want players to see the consequences of their actions.” Big story arcs will begin and end here, the impact of your decisions rippling through your growing community. You’ll see the effects of alliances – such as weddings to forge relationships between clans – and the consequences of “harsh choices you have to face”. It’s also where you’ll see some of the game’s romances play out (if you choose to indulge in those).

“It really changed the shape of the game we were making,” Laferrière says. “Instead of exploring one territory, then moving on to another and having no real opportunity or reason to return, the settlement changes the structure. So you’ll go on an adventure and then be encouraged to come back to your settlement. It changes the way we’re playing the game we’re making – at least, that’s the bet we’re making.” It’s not an entirely new concept for the franchise, but it’s been a long time since Assassin’s Creed tried to give players a proper home (boats and trains aside, AC3’s rather basic Homestead is the last good example). It’s also a tried and tested idea for the genre. As Laferrière speaks, he describes the settlement as a place of importance in Valhalla reminiscent of Skyhold and the Normandy, which players returned to time and again.

Eivor the Bearded.

Yesterday’s artwork strongly hinted at Valhalla’s focus on Britain – something made clearer by today’s trailer – and this is where Eivor’s new home will be founded. But you can’t have a Viking game without seeing Scandinavia, and Norway is the setting for the start of the game. “You have to understand where these people are coming from,” Laferrière explains. “You’ll feel the harshness of the lands, the political pressure there at the time. You’ll feel all that and hopefully you’ll understand why you have to move to England where most of the game takes place.” Britain will then make up the bulk of the game’s map, Laferrière adds, but “a few surprise areas” will also feature.

Looking cross.

It’s in Britain, of course, you’ll eventually meet King Alfred, who the trailer paints as the villain of the piece, complete with some Templar-looking artefacts in the background. But Laferrière assures me that Alf will be more of a complex character when you meet him in-game. “He is shown in that [villainous] way in the trailer but over the course of the game you’ll see there’s a lot more nuance to him,” I’m told. The game looks set to cover the Viking campaign against him (the one which led to him being on the run, burning cakes) and his eventual success at pushing the Norse back and unifying swathes of England. “Alfred the Great is a very important historical figure we want to treat right,” Laferrière says. “And to do so it’s all in the subtleties and nuances you’ll find.”

We haven’t touched on Valhalla’s main character Eivor in great detail, though partly this is due to Ubisoft avoiding plot spoilers and partly because, more than ever, I get the feeling we’ll be crafting our own version of this hero as the story progresses. One thing the trailer doesn’t tell you is that Eivor can be played as either male or female, and that your choice of gender is only part of the customisation you’ll get. Beards, tattoos and war paint options will be available to pick from. Your gear will also be customisable, Laferrière says, as will your Viking longboat. (Oh, and you get a Viking longboat.) Why does the trailer focus on the male version of Eivor only, I asked? The answer, as was the case with Odyssey’s Kassandra and Alexios, is that the marketing will “showcase both at different points”.

That’s so raven.

The other character in the trailer is the mysterious hooded figure which Eivor seems to associate with Norse god Odin – hanging around with a raven, the animal he is commonly linked with. Odyssey let players meet characters and creatures of Greek legend – and it seems like Valhalla will continue in this fold. “We’re obviously using the mythology,” Laferrière says. “We have found a cool way of integrating that with our lore which for today goes into major spoiler territory. But what I’ll say is their gods were part of their daily life. They were believed to be roaming the earth, involved in fights – that was part of the Viking spirituality. And that’s how we treat it in the game, which is true to beliefs and practices at the time.”

Naval gazing.

As for the raven, as many players have guessed, it will be your animal companion in Valhalla, just as eagles were in previous games. “We have a bunch of new abilities for the raven,” Laferrière teases. “We used it as a reason to re-explore the way players can explore the world so it is less reliant on UI. If you notice a distraction somewhere it’s probably because there’s some content there.” And if you thought having a home might mean less exploring the unknown this time around, it sounds like there will still be plenty of that too. “We want to make a world that rewards players for their curiosity. It links in with Vikings being great explorers – so the world is meant to be meaningful.”

Once again, you’ll be exploring both on land and on water, though it sounds like the naval battles of the past have been dialled back somewhat. There’s no sitting and firing cannons at other boats – Vikings just didn’t do that. Instead, your longships act as your fastest means of travel through the English countryside, along waterways which were the main roads of the era. Boats are also your fastest method of escape after launching an assault on a waterside fort. “Any military location you encounter on the rivers of England is fully raidable,” Laferrière explains. “We want you to be playing the ultimate Viking fantasy, so you’ll get to have your Viking buddies going with you on a longship. Sometimes you’ll get resources to take back and upgrade your settlement, or maybe additional firepower to help take down higher level bandits in the region.”

Blade’s back.

This mention of having friends along for the ride makes me wonder if there was any truth to rumours Valhalla might dabble with co-op play (which has not returned after a shaky effort in 2014’s Unity). Ubisoft has confirmed to me this isn’t the case – although some kind of interactivity seems to be on the cards. “Valhalla is a single player game,” a Ubisoft spokesperson clarified, “with many online components, encouraging players to share their progress and creativity”. One thing Ubisoft is willing to pin down for long-time fans is a continuation of the franchise’s overall arc for those engaged in that – meaning more backstory on the First Civilisation, and a third outing for present day character Layla (whose story suddenly got interesting in Odyssey’s final expansion). “We’ve found a way to blend the present day into a new type of experience for players,” Laferrière concludes. “And present day is playable – I can confirm that.”

For more than two and a half years, Valhalla has been in development by the Assassin’s Creed Origins team at Ubisoft Montreal. Led by Ashraf Ismail, creative director of series standouts like Origins and Black Flag, it has also had the support of an eye-popping 14 other studios worldwide. It’s a monumental project, designed from scratch to debut on PC, PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X later this year (along with versions for PS4, Xbox One and Stadia). And it looks ready, again, to redefine what Assassin’s Creed can be.

from EnterGamingXP https://entergamingxp.com/2020/04/assassins-creed-valhalla-reshapes-the-series-rpg-storytelling-by-giving-you-a-viking-settlement-%e2%80%a2-eurogamer-net/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=assassins-creed-valhalla-reshapes-the-series-rpg-storytelling-by-giving-you-a-viking-settlement-%25e2%2580%25a2-eurogamer-net

[theconservativebrief]

Ryan Coogler’s Creed, the 2015 film that unexpectedly made the Rocky franchise great again, worked so well because it knew exactly when to celebrate and when to subvert the Rocky formula.

Casting the great star-in-the-making Michael B. Jordan as Adonis “Donnie” Johnson, the son of Rocky’s Apollo Creed — whom the heavyweight champ Rocky Balboa got his million-to-one shot against in the 1976 original, before the two became friends in later films — was a smart way to replicate Rocky’s rise-and-fall-of-a-boxer story arc. It also allowed Creed to shed the weird detritus that the Rocky franchise had accumulated over the previous four decades (like that robot).

And as if that wasn’t enough, Coogler made the world aware of how great Tessa Thompson (who plays the film’s love interest) is and gave Sylvester Stallone (Rocky himself) his best role since the 1990s — while simultaneously announcing himself as one of the most promising directors of his generation. He shot Creed’s fight sequences with a balletic grace, and imbued the film’s interpersonal scenes with just as much heart and heft (before delivering on his potential with the impressive follow-up project of 2018’s absolutely massive hit Black Panther).

What makes Creed II just a little disappointing, then, is the way it simply becomes another Rocky movie. Where the first film meditated on the legacies that black fathers leave for their sons, on the notions of aging and mortality, and on what it means to build a name for yourself that distinguishes you from your parents, the second film is mostly concerned with who wins boxing matches. It pillages Rocky history wholesale, becoming a kind of remix of two of the other movies in the franchise.

And yet … the reason there are so many Rocky movies is that their base formula still works. Creed II might not be the near-perfect movie its predecessor was, but it’s still pretty good. Let’s examine the recipe that went into making this film.

Donnie and Bianca have a child, thus batting for the Rocky II cycle. MGM

If you know anything about the plot of Creed II — and the Rocky franchise in general — you’ll probably expect the film to follow in the footsteps of Rocky IV. And it does, pitting Donnie against the son of Ivan Drago, the man who killed Apollo. (We’ll get into this plot point in more detail in just a moment.)

But what holds Creed II together isn’t the conflict with Drago. Instead, it’s Donnie’s attempt to figure out what his life might look like without boxing. He and Bianca (Thompson) get engaged. They discover she’s pregnant. They move to Los Angeles to be closer to his mom (the great Phylicia Rashad). And when Donnie encounters a setback that makes him hesitant to return to the ring, the movie enters a surprisingly powerful stretch that just lets Jordan work through his emotions, trying to process the traumatic things that have happened to him.

It’s a reminder that this franchise has always been at its best when it pairs smaller-scale stories of its characters just trying to live their lives with the spectacle of the big boxing matches. It’s also a welcome chance to give Thompson and Rashad more to do than Creed offered — accounting for Creed II’s one unambiguous improvement over the original film.

But astute Rocky scholars will recognize this story as largely a soft reboot of the plot of Rocky II (one of the less discussed Rocky sequels, perhaps because it doesn’t feature a memorable “villain”). Like Rocky II, Creed II replaces a great director (Coogler on Creed; John Avildsen on Rocky) with a serviceable one (Steven Caple Jr. here; Stallone himself on Rocky II), and it compensates for a retread of a story with ever grander mythmaking. (At one point, Donnie retreats to the desert for a massive training montage that asks, “You already know Michael B. Jordan is buff. But what if he were more buff?”)

Even in the particulars of their plots, Creed II and Rocky II have a lot in common: the main character having to step away from boxing for a long time before finally dragging himself back to the ring for the climactic rematch; the coupling up; the baby being born.

And just like Rocky II, Creed II is a pretty good follow-up to a great predecessor.

The Dragos come to Philly. MGM

But, okay, there’s a lot of Rocky IV in this movie!

By far the most ridiculous of the Rocky films, Rocky IV sends the mumblemouthed boxer into the Soviet Union to avenge the death of Apollo, who died in a match against Ivan Drago, the Russian monolith of a man played by Dolph Lundgren. Rocky was Apollo’s trainer and failed to call the fight when he saw his boxer was ailing, so it’s a mission of both redemption and revenge. By the end of the film, Rocky has more or less won the Cold War.

Rocky IV is kind of awesome, in that cheesy ’80s way, but its tone could not be more different from the more realistic tone of the Creed movies. So the choice to incorporate Drago, his son Viktor, and a vision of post-Soviet Russia that mostly seems drawn from watching ’80s movies feels like a dangerous gamble on the part of Creed II screenwriters Stallone and Juel Taylor.

What saves this story from feeling like a total misfire is the script’s willingness to scramble your emotional investment. The Dragos were completely tossed out of Russian society and have had to live a hardscrabble life on the fringes of that world; Viktor is a massive wall of a man because it’s the only thing he knows how to be. (In contrast, Donnie had some degree of economic security once he learned who his father was.)

Don’t get me wrong. Neither Caple nor Creed II’s screenwriters seem to realize just how sympathetic they’ve made the Dragos, especially in a climactic fight that hinges on the relationship between father and son in a way that doesn’t wholly work. And pivoting from the intimacy of Creed to a generation-spanning family epic straight out of a potboiler novel is just a weird call all around. (So is the way Ivan keeps saying variations on “break him,” because everybody remembers him saying “I must break you” in Rocky IV.) But it could have been worse.

Stallone and Jordan still have potent chemistry. MGM

One reason Creed II manages to avoid totally losing itself in Rocky lore is simple: It’s still rooted in a movie that took its characters and their emotional complexities seriously. The sequel struggles to find anything for Rocky to do that’s as compelling as what he experienced in Creed, but it can still coast on the power of Stallone’s cragged face, tumbling off his skull like rocks from a mountain.

Similarly, there’s really no good reason for Creed II to busy itself with a brief conflict between Donnie and Rocky that seems to exist just to make the movie longer, but Jordan and Stallone built up such goodwill with Creed that I accepted it until I realized it was simply marking time. The sequel clearly recognizes how potent the chemistry between Jordan and Thompson is, and goes all in on it.

There are worrying signs in Creed II that a potential Creed III might abandon any semblance of ties to our reality, and its inability to meaningfully connect a story where Donnie becomes a father to the preceding film where he struggled under the burden of never knowing his own is a touch surprising.

And that’s to say nothing of Caple, who films Creed II’s fight scenes with a blunt, visceral quality that appeals but makes most of the movie’s smaller scenes feel a little perfunctory, as if he were checking shots off a list. Particularly egregious in this regard is a scene where Donnie’s mother figures out that Bianca is pregnant before she does, after his mom simply says that Bianca looks pregnant, even though we never see a hint of why she might think so. (Caple even botches a great little bit of physical comedy from Thompson that closes the scene!)

But I really loved Creed, and just enough of that movie’s spark carried over to its sequel to keep me invested.

In the end, what most prevents Creed II from being better is the way everything that happens in the Rocky universe primarily concerns the same handful of families — to the degree that when Donnie needs a new trainer in LA (after Rocky stays behind in Philly), he hires the son of Apollo’s old trainer. It’s ludicrous!

And it makes the movie feel a little like one of those primetime TV soap operas that indulge in wild fancies in the name of entertaining us. There are a couple of scenes involving the Drago family saga that made me howl, and their silliness felt half-intentional on the part of Creed II’s filmmakers, like they were daring the audience to take the scenes seriously because they knew how ridiculous it was.

This kind of hurts the movie’s attempt to establish the identity of the Creed franchise as something distinct from the Rocky franchise. But hey, even the stupidest Rocky movies are a lot of fun.

Gotta have a montage. MGM

The little-seen, not-that-bad 2006 Rocky Balboa — in which Rocky hauls himself back into the ring because the TV all but dares him to, while examining his relationship with his son (Milo Ventimiglia) — was not a movie whose themes I expected to ever appear in the Creed franchise. But there it is, winking at you in a handful of scenes, prodding you to wonder if Ventimiglia might take a day off from This Is Us to film a quick cameo.

I won’t reveal whether he did, but this tiny leavening agent is what ultimately reveals that Creed II’s heart is always in the right place, even when its brain isn’t. It’s a movie about how families are complicated legacies of their own, long continuations of stories we don’t always understand or appreciate as we’re living them, and how sometimes, time runs out unexpectedly. It is, in its own, weird way, a great Thanksgiving movie.

Creed II is playing in theaters everywhere.

Original Source -> Creed II is no Creed. But it’s a pretty good Rocky sequel.

via The Conservative Brief

[buytabletsonline]

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

In 1993, TV—and TV writing—were much different entities than what we know today.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, Exhibit 5,768: the current golden age of TV has clearly inspired a golden age of TV writing. And if you follow today’s TV criticism at all, chances are a handful of names immediately come to mind (people like Emily Nussbaum at The New Yorker or James Poniewozik at The New York Times, for instance). But time and time again, stories on the rise of this format in recent years end up pointing to one writer—Uproxx’s Alan Sepinwall—as the dean of modern TV criticism.

While landmark TV writing sites like TV Without Pity (1998) wouldn’t come along until the Internet matured, Sepinwall was on the Web back when “Lynx and Mosaic were the only two browsers and you had to drive uphill through the snow both ways to get to the Yahoo! homepage,” as he once put it. Back in 1993, long before he started his own blog or went on to contribute to the Star Ledger and Hitfix, Sepinwall was just a college sophomore posting about NYPD Blue to Usenet.

DS9 recapper / physics teacher, Tim Lynch.

MKA.org

Ask Sepinwall about the origins of modern TV writing, however, and he has something different in mind: Usenet’s rec.arts.startrek.current and a certain Deep Space Nine recapper extraordinaire named Tim Lynch.

“Tim was, I think, a CalTech prof by day. I tried tracking him down once to thank him for inspiration, to no avail,” Sepinwall tweeted when reflecting on his 20 years as a critic in 2016.

Luckily, Sepinwall ultimately got his chance. In fact, the underground TV writing/DS9 legend recognized the name. “I remembered Alan Sepinwall from my days on Usenet,” Lynch told Ars recently. “He didn’t tend to post to the Star Trek newsgroups all that much, but I remember seeing his stuff here and there. And when I later moved back to New Jersey, The Star-Ledger is where he was writing for years. I read that column and I said ‘I know him.’ He found me a few years ago when someone was doing a feature on him, and he ended up sending me a signed copy of his book.”

Enlarge / Ah, a delightful Usenet terminal.

Ground zero(ish) of Internet TV writing

Ahead of the recent anniversary of his start with DS9, Lynch happily revealed he didn’t start modern TV criticism, either—he actually got into it because his college buddy Mike was already reviewing Trek on mailing lists and Usenet back in 1988. “After about half a season [of reading], I said, ‘You know, I can do that,” Lynch said. “So very early in The Next Generation S2, I started writing reviews.”

This was the late ‘80s, and Lynch would review TNG all the way through S6. His early work doesn’t resemble what you’d necessarily read in Entertainment Weekly or on The AV Club today: the pieces include recaps of the main plot and any notable subplots before getting into how he feels about the episode (see an early review from 1989 for TNG’s “The Icarus Factor” as an example). Each ends with a rating out of 10, sometimes rating individual storylines or performances even.

But in January 1993, things changed. That’s when, 25 years ago this month, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine premiered.

“I even said it in one of my reviews, I wasn’t planning on reviewing DS9. The time suck was too large,” Lynch said. He had just started his first year of teaching (which was “also not a time-light activity”). “I warned people not to expect reviews, but then the show premiered. I thought ‘I can’t not talk about this.’”

Here, Lynch’s writing evolved into the forebear for modern TV writing. To start, Lynch didn’t shy away from or hide his personal preferences. For instance, slapstick Ferengi episodes? No thanks, see his review of S6’s “Profit and Lace”—“I wrote something to the effect of: ‘There were some nice moments of pathos, some nice cliffhangers, and Armin Shimerman did a great job, but enough with this week’s Buffy the Vampire Slayer,’” Lynch recalled. “That got a lot of people’s attention.”

Lynch skipped his prior recaps in favor of individual episode discussions involving themes, writing, and performances. His pieces got longer, and separate season wrap-ups emerged. For another example, Lynch looks back at DS9 S2 as a high point, and a late-season review like his take on two-parter “The Maquis” demonstrates that reverence. While all the reps (Lynch imagines he penned well over 100,000 words in total between TNG, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise, and some film reviews) clearly helped him develop a certain style, Lynch acknowledges DS9 also provided a richer text to engage with.

“From early on, DS9 struck me as something with so much meat in the premise. There was an awful lot of stuff they could do with it, and I got very into its potential,” he said. “TNG was depicting a very utopian society, which was challenging for the writers at times. But DS9 and later Voyager dealt more with, ‘How do you maintain a utopia’ or, in Voyager’s case, ‘How do you build one?’ Voyager ran away from that premise as fast as it could, but DS9 mostly tried to keep that. In the end, I wasn’t 100 percent thrilled that they decided to go on a war footing instead, but there was a lot of stuff they did that spoke to more complexity of character and theme than TNG. I love TNG, but DS9 usually gave me more to think about.”

Sisko explains to Bashir that humans of the 21st century rebelled against the government that kept impoverished people in ghettos.

The actors who played Bashir and Garak on Deep Space Nine played up the romantic chemistry between the two men.

CBS

CBS

Deep Space Nine is on the wormhole front in the Dominion Wars, yet its main characters remain fundamentally humane and strive for peace.

Deep Space 9

A genuine Internet impact

Though he covered TNG, Voyager, Enterprise, and some films/books, Lynch’s writings on DS9 are what ultimately earned him a lasting place in TV criticism lore. If the Sepinwall namecheck isn’t enough proof, his work eventually inspired fans to create an entire wikia just for these reviews, and his writing decisions (like when he took on Enterprise or eventually retired) made TrekToday headlines just like the announcement of a new film would. (No, he insists his work didn’t inspire the First Contact character, though.)

Lynch kinda, sorta even had an idea at the time that he was gaining more readers than just his other Usenet pals. Early in his DS9 review, Lynch taught science at a school in California “and I was teaching Rick Berman [Gene Roddenberry’s successor]’s son, just luck of the draw,” he said. “I don’t know that his dad was reading my reviews all that much, but his son certainly was. And he asked me for copies of a couple of them from Voyager and DS9 to print out and show dad.”

Lynch would later hear from people like writer Brannon Braga (TNG, Voyager, Enterprise, and now The Orville) and artist Michael Okuda (supervisor on many films and Enterprise), plus fellow TV writers like Bad Astronomer Phil Plait. A UK magazine called TV Zone asked Lynch to review Trek books based on the strength of his DS9 work, studios approached him with sci-fi scripts to review, Tor nearly published a compilation, and the Marc Alaimo (DS9’s Gul Dukat) fan club even asked him to attend an official farewell dinner at the end of DS9 (both Alaimo and Casey Biggs, DS9’s Damar, chatted Lynch up that evening).

Yet the pièce de résistance of his impact seems clear in retrospect—the TNG writers room once invited Lynch to pitch an episode based on the strength of his work near the beginning of DS9. Lynch recalls he wrote an episode following up on Data dreaming as laid out in TNG’s “Birthright;” the writer dug into Trek dream symbolism and Data’s emotions or lack thereof.

“Obviously, I wasn’t taken, but that was very flattering,” Lynch said. “I’m flattered and still somewhat amazed that the decade or so of writing I did was seen as so valuable.”

Born at the wrong time?

If Lynch came up reviewing Trek during today’s TV writing culture, it’s quite likely he would’ve been scooped up by some major outlet (if not a sci-fi show writer’s room directly) to write full-time. But his experience came during a different era of recaps and reviews, so Lynch still teaches science to generations of young students. And if he were to shift careers back to writing, he’d rather pursue science writing than entertainment writing at this point anyway. Yet, today he has no regrets about how it all played out.

“Those reviews made me realize my writing was somehow valuable, and it encouraged me to keep doing it in some shape or form,” Lynch said. “It made me better as a teacher, and it leads to the occasional moment of hilarity when students stumble upon it and say, ‘Wait, is this you?’ A friend who was dean of students at one of my previous schools referred to me as her favorite science nerd, and she said it was because I didn’t write like one.”

A few years have passed since Lynch rewatched any DS9, but he keeps up with new Trek films and intends to follow Discovery once its distribution method becomes a bit more viewer-friendly. Given how much a certain series shaped his life, however—Lynch’s DS9 writings spanned the entire run of the show, which coincided with ages 22 to 29 for the teacher—it’s unlikely his answer to “what’s the best Trek?” will ever change.

“As much as I tended to ride DS9 for not living up to its potential at times, in a lot of ways it was a high-water mark for writing in the Star Trek Universe,” Lynch said. “The advantage of being in a stationary setting versus a starship setting is, you couldn’t run away from the consequences, which is something virtually every other series did quite a bit. In DS9, they really had to push themselves in different ways, so some of the cultural questions and political questions it brought up are still to this day very, very strong pieces of work and things I think about.

“I would love to have some other Trek series come up where I can say, ‘I think we’re finally equalling the strengths of DS9—and without the occasional lows.’ But that remains a pipedream.”

Lynch joked he likely won’t be so eager to chat when Voyager hits its 25th anniversary in 2020. So as far as legacies go, he notes, DS9’s is not a bad one to have after all these years.

http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); http://ift.tt/2DrZIet January 13, 2018 at 06:31PM