WI: Richard Dean Anderson as Benjamin Sisko

What if Richard Dean Anderson played Benjamin Sisko in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine? Would it be better series or even worse?

EDIT: Fixed :)
 
Last edited:
He's referring to Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.

And yeah, worse. Avery Brooks defined Sisko so perfectly with his performance that I doubt anyone else could hold a candle to him.
 

Geon

Donor
If Richard Dean Anderson played Ben Sisko (Star Trek DS9) instead of Stargate I think we might see a far different series. Anderson's characters always struck me as laid back and fun-loving. I think as commander of DS9 that might have made a big difference in both the Sisko character and the way the other characters related to him.
 
What if Richard Dean Anderson played Benjamin Sisko? Would it be better series or even worse?

Different, certainly. Maybe a more 'formulaic' DS9 - I can't imagine Anderson playing the kind of intense, driven man that Sisko was, and his character type played a major part in DS9's arcs.

Also: what's this 'even worse' business? OK, each to their own opinion, but IMHO DS9 is easily one of the best Trek series.
 
Also: what's this 'even worse' business? OK, each to their own opinion, but IMHO DS9 is easily one of the best Trek series.

I agree. DS9 is tied with TNG for me. I always liked the more serialized style it had.

As for Anderson, I agree. He has always played more light hearted individuals and I think it would be weird for Sisko to have that type of personality. Plus being in DS9 would set his career down a different path and he might never be in my beloved Stargate.
 
Richard Dean Anderson as Sisko? No. Brooks was absolutely perfect for that role.

Richard Dean Anderson as Archer in Enterprise? NOW you have yourself an possible cast upgrade

I still maintain that was simply Sam Beckett in the body of Captain Archer, trying to set history right where the Temporal Cold War had it go wrong. Porthos is really Al in disguise.
 
To the Ben Sisko issue, I honestly think it would be like Babylon 5 where they had that one commander for a while before replacing the character. He's a decent actor, but he does not have the style or gravitas for what they want that character to be. He's too white bread.
 
Didn't they really want a black man in command at this point in time though? You have to remember this is Star Trek and the post-whateverist future is in its DNA. You can't just race lift the first black captain (or commander as it were) out. If for some reason you managed to, I think it would make it worse because it would mean Star Trek lost something essential to its raison d'etre.
 
Honestly, he could have turned out like Scott Bakula as Archer. On a personal note, poor Scott Bakula. So much potential for that show and character got wasted, which has to be hard for an actor. I know a lot of Voyager actors voiced similar ire. By that point, it was Berman and Braga and stories that were just "Star Trek", without being tailored and personalized to the characters and situations.
 
Honestly, he could have turned out like Scott Bakula as Archer. On a personal note, poor Scott Bakula. So much potential for that show and character got wasted, which has to be hard for an actor. I know a lot of Voyager actors voiced similar ire. By that point, it was Berman and Braga and stories that were just "Star Trek", without being tailored and personalized to the characters and situations.

Agreed. I gripe massively about both shows chiefly because they both had enormous potential to do new things and develop news characters, and instead squandered it.

I'm reminded of what Zero Punctuation said about sequels: a good sequel uses the original as a jumping-off point to explore new things; and a bad sequel wallows in the original like a hippo in a swimming pool :D Both could have done really different stuff, but both instead played like TNG with the numbers filed off...
 
Top