www.ditl.org

Ok this is one time I am not even going to try and defend the Federation.

The mere fact that the Maquis had to for shows a remarkable lack of balls on the part of the Federation.

I know they are all for peace and settling things with out fighting but giving an inferior enemy a bunch of your space and screwing over your own people then actively hunting down your own people and calling the criminals is way to far.

While it was a pretty interesting story line I feel it could have gone further into the people involved. The betrayal and the split loyalties. The fact that good people were forced to do bad things for their homes and families. You could have almost made a whole series out of it but it probably would have ended up as a space soap opera.

Could have been cool to see them used in the war. The Federation invites them back in, they refuse but accept aid from the Federation and work as enemy behind the lines disrupting Dominion business and plans.

Uh, they did use the Maquis in the Dominion storyline - they were wiped out by the Jem'Hadar, and Eddington managed to trick Sisko into taking a runabout into the Badlands to evacuate the survivors.

Thats bit really using them. Thats getting rid of them. I wabted them utilized.

Teaos wrote:Thats bit really using them. Thats getting rid of them. I wabted them utilized.

Given the Maquis' military strength, there's not much they could have done with them - they were limited to hit-and-run attacks on unescorted Cardassian ships. They only manged to make a real impact after the Klingons invaded and smashed the Cardassian military, allowing the Maquis to establish local superiority. Against the might of the Dominion, suggesting that the Maquis could have survived when even the Klingons were booted out in double-quick time would have been stretching credibility.

Yes, the best that the Maquis could have been against the Dominion would have been a slightly-effective gadfly, at best. In general, I thought the idea of the Maquis was used well; as a reminder of the grey area and the uncertainty in the UFP's black-and-white moral outlook. Their methods were certainly what we would call "wrong," but the premise of their struggle was certainly sympathetic.

While the Maquis didn't originate on DS9, it certainly complemented that franchise's outlook perfectly.

Mikey wrote:While the Maquis didn't originate on DS9, it certainly complemented that franchise's outlook perfectly.

Actually, they did.

"Journey's End", which set up the Fed-Cardie border treaty that was the cause of the problem was broadcast on 26th March 1994.

"The Maquis", which depicted the fighting in the DMZ and the formation of the Maquis was broadcast on 24th April and 1st May.

"Preemptive Strike" was broadcast on 14th May.

Between them, they make up the introduction arc.

Fine, fine. Does that affect my point in some way?

Mikey wrote:Fine, fine. Does that affect my point in some way?

Only that it complimented DS9 well because it was a DS9 plot - it's not the sort of thing that TNG, with its utopian outlook, likey have come up with. TBH I wasn't sure myself which way the Maquis arc went, so I looked it up on MA. Just a bit of nit-picking on my part.

The Maquis; a good idea, a poor execution.
It was nice to have a 'grey' area in later Trek, a nice contrast to TNG's black/white outlook. However, they were horificaly underused, and it seems like every second member was a double agent (I'm looking at you, Voyager).

Look at what the resistance did in france during WWII. They didnt have any major wins but did enough to be a problem and help the allies out.

The Maquis could of filled that roll perfectly.

Teaos wrote:Look at what the resistance did in france during WWII. They didnt have any major wins but did enough to be a problem and help the allies out.

You know they were also known as the Maquis?

Yeah but it would be confusing calling them both the Maquis.

Why did the Trek writers decide to call their guys the Maquis?

My guess would be it is less politically loaded than most terms for guerrilla movements, which are more easily associated with communists and terrorists.

Perhaps so.