Help icon

Maintenance links

Memory Alpha talk pages are for improving the article only.
For general discussion on this episode, visit the DS9 forum at The Trek BBS.


Is there really a reference to Jesus in this episode? I didn't catch it, what was the line? Jaf 15:36, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)Jaf

Come on, Benny, your hero's a Negro captain. The head of a space station, for Christ's sake. - Douglas Pabst. Tough Little Ship 15:39, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, now based on how he words that should we put it under people or slang. Maybe both? Actually, if we want to really be picky, Chirst is a title meaning son of God and dispite there only be one claimed in our history we can't really call it a reference to Jesus the man. :) Jaf 16:04, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)Jaf

Perhaps a little too off-topic but I believe the statement that Christ means son of God is an over-simplification. not everybody would ascribe that exact meaning to the word Christ even when used in its original non-slang historical context. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Background information Edit

Does anyone know if the drawing of the little girl and the alien/robot (I can't remember which it was, but the title was "Please Take me with You") is a reference to anything in particular? Given the way every single thing in "Little Green Men" was an in-joke or allusion of some kind, I can't believe it was just thrown in there. --Schrei 01:18, 1 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Testimony Edit

This episode is one my all-time favourite ST shows. Utterly profound! Brings a tear to my eye thinking about it. Everything is perfect. The hommage to the original creators of the SF genre is lovely. And the attitude of the African American castmembers (and the use of the N-word) is a well-deserved kick in the pants to all those who hypocrtitically harrumphed over Avery Brooks being captain. Yet he was one of the finest actors on ST, and directed this difficult episode wonderfully too!

Wolf514 18:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Dead link Edit

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case! If the dead link is fixed, please also remove this comment.

--HighwindBot 17:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

DC Fontana?Edit

Is there any evidence to suggest that "K.C. Hunter" (the character based on Major Kira) is in homage to D.C. Fontana, the TOS writer? Both had to use their initials to cover the fact that they were female in a period that didn't accept female sci-fi writers. It's a neat parallel, if nothing else. -AJM (The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).)

Well this book believes so.--LauraCC (talk) 17:14, October 7, 2015 (UTC)

Bop shoo wopEdit

There's a moment (at about 16:56 in the episode on the DVD) where "Benny" is walking down the street with 3 kids singing a doo-wop type of song. Now, it's slower and a little more "swinging", but to me the melody sounds exactly like the main tune in the theme song to "Little Shop of Horrors". Did the music supervisor for the song "accidentally steal" the melody due to the tune being in his/her subconsious, much like George Harrison accidentally stole "He's So Fine" when writing "My Sweet Lord"? Or is it an intentional homage/easter egg? - Ugliness Man 08:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

According to, the songs heard in this episode are Glow Worm, Walking My Baby Back Home, Sweet Lorraine, Everything I Have is Yours, Angel Face, Blue Light Boogie, Please Love Me and The K.C. Blues. Maybe it is one of those songs. --Jörg 08:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
It's surely the opening to Come Go With Me by the Del-Vikings. The timing and melody is almost exactly the same. It's funny because the song was recorded in 1956, while the episode is set in 1953. Also interestingly, According to Wikipedia, the syllables doo-wap, which the boys were singing, weren't in any record until 1955. Meapineapple (talk) 19:57, June 14, 2015 (UTC)

what year is it?Edit

the sidebar lists this episode as occuring in 1953...where did that come from? While Stalin might have died in 1953, and the Bradbury movie was released in 1953, what proof is there that this episode occured in that year? Ranger Bill XX 22:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The script states that it is 1953. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
It's also seen on screen: The cover of an issue of Galaxy (magazine) sold in the episode is dated "September 1953". --Jörg 12:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

breaking the 4. wallEdit

Maybe someone should mention that this is the only Star Trek episode ever to directly break the 4. wall. TOS allways broke the 4. wall at the end of every episode by having Spock, Kirk and McCoy explain to the viewer the moral of the episode and relating it to events of the present time (the 60's).

But this is the first episode that openly has a carachter becoming aware of the fact that he is a carachter.

Actually the preacher also breaks the 4. wall as he is the one who tells Sisko that he is just a Carachter in a Science Fiction. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

What? --OuroborosCobra talk 23:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
He's probably referring to the way that the Episode nearly reveals the fictitious nature of the franchise, making it really seem as if it is an imagination. Kind of Similar to the reference Picard makes in "Ship in a Bottle", where he says there existance may be no more than an imagination.
Although I do not think that this completely brakes the 4th wall, as my prospective simply revealed that the whole thing was an illusion sent by the prophets, and the shot at the end was simply a reminder to Sisko that Benny Russle is a part of him. --Nmajmani 01:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Benny Russell is fiction too so there's no 4th wall breakage at all. 08:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
User:, I think the point being made is that Benjamin Sisko, a fictional character, becomes aware, towards the end of the episode, that he may in fact be a fictional character. --Jayunderscorezero 10:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that is the point, yes, Sisko, as a fictional character, becomes aware of his own (possibly) fictional existence. However, this does not constitute a break of the 4th wall. It's an example of what's known as anti-illusionism. Any fictitious text (or film, show etc), by its mere existence as fiction creates a skein of make-belief which the audience accepts by default, i.e. an illusion that what is happening is real within the world established in the text (hence the term 'illusionism'). When that skein is broken down however, the illusionism is shattered, and the audience is explicitly reminded that they are reading/watching a constructed reality. Now, breaking the 4th wall is one type of anti-illusionistic practice, but there are many many others, and what happens in this episode is not a break in the 4th wall. Anti-illusionism occurs whenever the division between the world of the characters and the world of the reader is in some way broken-down, so that both characters and reader come to occupy the same ontological 'zone' - they come to exist in the same world, if only for a moment. A character becoming aware of his own fictional existence is a perfect example, because for him to acknowledge that existence, he must momentarily enter the world of the audience and look at himself as a purely constructed textual entity. A break of the 4th wall however, whilst it is anti-illusionistic, has nothing to do with a character's realisation of his own status within the fictional world, it is simply an acknowledgement of the audience from within the fictional text itself. So, for example, Fight Club breaks the 4th wall all the time, and is hence anti-illusionistic, so do many of Shakespeare's plays, and most of Bertold Brecht's work - but none of them have characters acknowledging that they are fictional characters. The gist of it is that every break of the 4th wall is anti-illusionistic, but not every example of anti-illusionism must be a break in the 4th wall. This episode comes close to anti-illusionism, "Rules of Engagement" and, especially, "In the Pale Moonlight" come close to breaking the 4th wall, so the difference should be reasonably apparent to anyone familiar with these episodes. And before anyone asks, don't worry, I'm an English lecturer and my area of expertise (for want of a better expression) is narratology and anti-illusionism. – Bertaut talk 19:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
There's also a 4th wall break of a sort in TNG: Measure of a Man - when Picard asks those who are present in the court whether or not Data is sentient, he says "do you?" and the camera is momentarily right on him, as if asking the audience - then it cuts to Maddox's reaction 20:56, March 25, 2012 (UTC)
I think he was addressing Captain Louvois, not the audience.31dot 21:00, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

Bashir as Changeling? Edit

Right at the start of this episode, Bashir makes reference to ""Rapture"", and Sisko's mental pathways during his visions. Now, it is generally accepted that the Bashir in "Rapture" was a Changeling (indeed, it is accepted that this is the debut of the Changeling), but I'm just wondering does what he says in this episode cast any doubt on that assertion? Does his knowledge of what happened a year ago suggest that perhaps he was still himself during "Rapture". True, he could simply have 'familiarized' himself with the work of the Changeling, so it's a tenuous suggestion, but I'm mainly just wondering what other people's view of this is, and should it perhaps be mentioned in the BG section? Edit: I've just noticed that Kasidy mentions Sisko needing surgery 'again'. This could also be interpreted as pointing to the fact that it was Bashir himself who operated on him originally. – Bertaut talk 22:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? Anyone at all?? – Bertaut talk 14:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the best explanation for this is that Bashir completely familiarised himself with everything the changeling did (medically speaking anyway) while he was in the Dominion prison camp. Again the reference to surgery by Kasidy just means Julian knows about it, not that he performed it. It seems obvious that the scriptwriters hadn't decided to make Bashir a changeling until shortly before Rapture at the earliest. I think the fact that nothing he says completely disproves the assumption that Rapture's Bashir was a changeling means that there is no need to mention it in the background, but thats just my opinion. Wheatleya 23:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah you're probably right about him just familiarizing himself with the work done by the Changeling (although it's always bothered me that apparently a Changeling performed brain surgery on Sisko; that's kind of silly really). As far as I know, the writers didn't actually decide to make Bashir a changeling until they were working on the two-parter itself. But you're right, there's nothing to directly disprove the theory that the Bashir in this episode is a spy. I was just curious to see what other people thought about it – Bertaut talk 03:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

BG Section Edit

As y'all can see, I've done a fairly extensive overhaul of the BG section, all the info that was originally there is all still there, but it's been moved around a bit, and is now intermingled with stuff I've added. I hope people like it as it exists now, I think it's pretty thorough, but I'd welcome any ideas for expanding and/or improving it – Bertaut talk 03:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Missing reference Edit

Hello, the space shuttle wich appears many times on the table in the office remind me the space shuttle of a very famous french/belgium comics : Tintin Check A clue is the date of printing : 1953 :) The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Ironic Edit

It may have slipped peoples attention but a white actor was used in place of Brooks as he takes the sketch of DS9 from J.G. Hertzler. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

I believe the brown-suited arm with the black-strapped watch is that of Auberjonois who passes the mantis sketch to Shimmerman earlier, and not intended to be that of Brooks. TheHYPO 23:16, December 4, 2009 (UTC)

The Cage Edit

Since there are so many references in the BG section to situations and people that are referenced or similar to situations and characters in this episode, would it be fair to mention the similarity between Auberjonois's complaint about the negro captain and requirement that it be rewritten as a white captain is extremely similar to the situation faced by Roddenberry in getting Star Trek to air in that NBC wanted him to get rid of the woman first officer and the alien. Unlike Brooks's character in this episode, however, Roddenberry caved and eliminated the woman. TheHYPO 23:16, December 4, 2009 (UTC)

If there is citeable evidence of such a similarity, it can certainly be mentioned.--31dot 23:22, December 4, 2009 (UTC)
Except that wasn't quite the case with "The Cage". They didn't like Barrett in the role. But seeing that it was Roddenberry's gf, he told her that they didn't like the role period. -- sulfur 23:23, December 4, 2009 (UTC)
I thought it was because the test audiences didn't like the role of that woman - with quotes such as "who does that woman think she is?" from one of them. I specifically remember that from one of the special features or something similar. — Morder (talk) 23:25, December 4, 2009 (UTC)
That was it. The role, not so bad. The actress in it, not so good. -- sulfur 23:30, December 4, 2009 (UTC)

Far Beyond the Stars Edit

The episode's title is likely a reference to a lyric in "Beyond the Sea," a big band standard written in 1946, and made most famous by a hit recording of it in 1959 by Bobby Darin

Unlikely reference made by a user. — Morder (talk) 06:50, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

Why on earth is that an unlikely reference? The song is a very well-known standard from the era in which the episode is set. It's one of the best known old standards out there. Considering that DS9 had a lounge singer who sang the same style of music, it's a virtual certainty that DS9's writers and production staff were familiar with the song. So...explain to me again why it's unlikely? Niremetal 16:28, December 12, 2010 (UTC)
The likelihood is irrelevant, especially because its measure is entirely subjective. We require citations from a reliable source, such as the "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion". --OuroborosCobra talk 19:41, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

First broadcast interruption in the UK Edit

Not sure if this needs to be addresses but during the first broadcast on SkyOne in the UK there was a fault for about half an hour so that viewers missed a lot of the episode. It was hastily rebroadcast in the early evening repeat slot replacing a TNG episode. Lt.Lovett (talk) 15:08, August 22, 2013 (UTC)

Was this something that made the news at the time or was otherwise unusually controversial? If it was just a routine technical issue I don't think we need to put that(especially if it was broadcast in its entirety shortly after this problem). 31dot (talk) 17:06, August 22, 2013 (UTC)

It was of note as it was not a standard problem (the whole of BSkyB went down) the rebroadcast seems to have been due to pressure from fans, or contractual, the response from fans did make news. I know some show pages list the first UK broadcast so perhaps just a short note? Lt.Lovett (talk) 13:55, August 23, 2013 (UTC)

If you can find news stories from the time I don't see why you couldn't put that. 31dot (talk) 14:34, August 23, 2013 (UTC)

Michael Dorn's second appearance as a human, not the only? Edit

Defiant helmsman, 2372

Christopher Michael

Hi, I'd like to point out that there is a mistake in the Production paragraph:

Despite the fact that he made a total of 282 Star Trek appearances, this is the only time that Michael Dorn appears on Star Trek as a Human

This seems wrong. In fact this marks his second appearance on DS9 as a Human (without Klingon makeup).

In episode 4x18 "Rules of Engagement" we see several flashbacks from the viewpoint of various witnesses. At one point O'Brien is asked how he would have reacted if he was in Worf's position of commanding the Defiant and in this flashback (ca. 22:24) we see O'Brien in the captain's chair and Michael Dorn (in Human make-up) at the conn:

I take it that was an in-joke since this is not a real flashback but a what-if scenario that never really happened. Instead of Worf commanding the Defiant we see O'Brien and since this is just a hypothetical scenario it makes sense to use a hypothetical conn officer - in this case played by Michael Dorn.

Anyone else who noticed that?

Nylle 18:30, April 23, 2015 (UTC)

That's Christopher Michael, not Michael Dorn. -- sulfur (talk) 18:36, April 23, 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear. My bad. Glad I asked before editing. Thanks! -- Nylle 18:40, April 23, 2015 (UTC)

Story arc Edit

Should this ep and "Shadows and Symbols" be included in a Benny Russell story arc? Or no? --LauraCC (talk) 19:26, September 22, 2015 (UTC)

No. Previously discussed. Previously decided that "no". :)
I'll find a reference to the prior discussion later. -- sulfur (talk) 19:56, September 22, 2015 (UTC)