View Full Version: 2x19

Cult Tv Boards > DS9 > 2x19



Title: 2x19
Description: Blood Oath


Hippy - May 12, 2005 09:13 PM (GMT)
QUOTE
Three Klingons arrive on the station that Curzon Dax took a Klingon blood oath with after their young sons were murdered. One of the Klingons has discovered where the murderer is in hiding and the three Klingons intend to avenge their sons' deaths. Jadzia must decide if she will honor the oath Curzon took and go with them with the intention of killing this man.

Phillip Culley - May 13, 2005 09:16 PM (GMT)
While I usually enjoy Klingon stories, this one took far too long to actually get going so leaving us with a rushed ending.

However, it was wonderful to see the original 3 Klingons from TOS (although they magically got 'pastified' despite being humans with goatees back in TOS :)), and quite a shame ina way they had to kill most of them off...

Also, Dax seems to have had a change of heart - wasn't it only two episodes ago she was saying 'I am not Curzon', and yet today she'll happily honour his blood oath? Personally I hope Sisko gave her the bollocking (no, not like that :p) she deserved...

Hippy - May 14, 2005 11:44 PM (GMT)
I still like this one.

Bloody hell I posted another spoiler :rolleyes:

No great plot developments or revelations but a decent enough stand alone ep.

Hippy - August 9, 2006 01:21 PM (GMT)
'Spoiler free'

willowroolz - August 13, 2006 11:03 AM (GMT)
Enjoyable enough. In theory, for me at least, it should have been great to see Kor, Kang and Koloth again, but in practice the characters seem to have been completely recreated :ermm:

Kor, imo, was the best Klingon of all, just from his appearance in Errand of Mercy. John Colicos played him as charismatic, powerful, extremely intelligent, easily a match for Kirk and co. I suppose the intervening years could have had an effect (the peace treaty etc causing him to become a drunk, reliving past glories in the holosuite), but I would far rather have seen him as the leader of the group, exhibiting all those previous facets of his character than playing the bumbling, fawning fool. Very disappointing.

My memory of Koloth from The Trouble With Tribbles is that of an arrogant, preening oaf who got his arse handed to him in a sling by the crew of the Enterprise, made to look a fool and flouncing out like the idiot he was. This is a completely different character, here. The only thing that remains is the arrogance, and I don't really buy the transformation.

Kang just about survives intact from Day of the Dove, but I think that's more down to Michael Ansara being a one-note performer than anything else :ermm:

I've just read that the writer wanted to re-model the three of them on characters from The Magnificent Seven, with Kang as Yul Brynner, Koloth as James Coburn etc. FFS, what's the point of that? They were existing characters and should have been treated as such :rolleyes:

And then there's the change in appearance. I guess I can understand them wanting to be consistent with the look of the movies and TNG, but it's a little irritating, for me at least. I haven't seen the Enterprise episode that's supposed to explain all of this, but then that wouldn't explain why they looked normal in their respective Star Trek episodes that supposedly happened after Archer and co anyway, would it? :unsure: :shrug:

Having said all that I did enjoy the episode on a fairly basic level. The final scene was interesting, but I'll comment on that in the next episode thread :ponder:

Phillip Culley - August 13, 2006 02:12 PM (GMT)
QUOTE
And then there's the change in appearance. I guess I can understand them wanting to be consistent with the look of the movies and TNG, but it's a little irritating, for me at least. I haven't seen the Enterprise episode that's supposed to explain all of this, but then that wouldn't explain why they looked normal in their respective Star Trek episodes that supposedly happened after Archer and co anyway, would it?


Actually it does explain it, however I won't say anything more without spoiling it :)

willowroolz - August 14, 2006 07:08 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Phillip Culley @ Aug 13 2006, 03:12 PM)
QUOTE
And then there's the change in appearance. I guess I can understand them wanting to be consistent with the look of the movies and TNG, but it's a little irritating, for me at least. I haven't seen the Enterprise episode that's supposed to explain all of this, but then that wouldn't explain why they looked normal in their respective Star Trek episodes that supposedly happened after Archer and co anyway, would it?


Actually it does explain it, however I won't say anything more without spoiling it :)

Aha! :thumbsup:

Hang on, does that mean I've got to get Enterprise now? :unsure: :lol:

Crichton Kicks - August 15, 2006 01:45 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (willowroolz @ Aug 14 2006, 08:08 AM)
QUOTE (Phillip Culley @ Aug 13 2006, 03:12 PM)
QUOTE
And then there's the change in appearance. I guess I can understand them wanting to be consistent with the look of the movies and TNG, but it's a little irritating, for me at least. I haven't seen the Enterprise episode that's supposed to explain all of this, but then that wouldn't explain why they looked normal in their respective Star Trek episodes that supposedly happened after Archer and co anyway, would it?


Actually it does explain it, however I won't say anything more without spoiling it :)

Aha! :thumbsup:

Hang on, does that mean I've got to get Enterprise now? :unsure: :lol:

Just so long as you don't get Voyager........ :unsure: :lol:

willowroolz - August 15, 2006 01:48 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Crichton Kicks @ Aug 15 2006, 02:45 PM)
QUOTE (willowroolz @ Aug 14 2006, 08:08 AM)
QUOTE (Phillip Culley @ Aug 13 2006, 03:12 PM)
QUOTE
And then there's the change in appearance. I guess I can understand them wanting to be consistent with the look of the movies and TNG, but it's a little irritating, for me at least. I haven't seen the Enterprise episode that's supposed to explain all of this, but then that wouldn't explain why they looked normal in their respective Star Trek episodes that supposedly happened after Archer and co anyway, would it?


Actually it does explain it, however I won't say anything more without spoiling it :)

Aha! :thumbsup:

Hang on, does that mean I've got to get Enterprise now? :unsure: :lol:

Just so long as you don't get Voyager........ :unsure: :lol:

:p :snooty:

Too late :lol:

Crichton Kicks - August 15, 2006 02:15 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (willowroolz @ Aug 15 2006, 02:48 PM)
QUOTE (Crichton Kicks @ Aug 15 2006, 02:45 PM)
QUOTE (willowroolz @ Aug 14 2006, 08:08 AM)
QUOTE (Phillip Culley @ Aug 13 2006, 03:12 PM)
QUOTE
And then there's the change in appearance. I guess I can understand them wanting to be consistent with the look of the movies and TNG, but it's a little irritating, for me at least. I haven't seen the Enterprise episode that's supposed to explain all of this, but then that wouldn't explain why they looked normal in their respective Star Trek episodes that supposedly happened after Archer and co anyway, would it?


Actually it does explain it, however I won't say anything more without spoiling it :)

Aha! :thumbsup:

Hang on, does that mean I've got to get Enterprise now? :unsure: :lol:

Just so long as you don't get Voyager........ :unsure: :lol:

:p :snooty:

Too late :lol:

Sucker........ :p

willowroolz - August 15, 2006 02:26 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Crichton Kicks @ Aug 15 2006, 03:15 PM)
Sucker........ :p

:lol:

Guilty as charged. I am a marketing man's wet dream (allegedly) :lol:

Crichton Kicks - August 15, 2006 02:29 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (willowroolz @ Aug 15 2006, 03:26 PM)
QUOTE (Crichton Kicks @ Aug 15 2006, 03:15 PM)
Sucker........      :p

:lol:

Guilty as charged. I am a marketing man's wet dream (allegedly) :lol:

And there's a claim to fame! :lol:




Hosted for free by InvisionFree