Well, I couldn’t be more lost here, but after I just went through all that to sign up, I’m not about to just walk away from what I had wanted to say…(and I can’t find that tread). About Sisko’s father: when he says he WAS a gourmet cook, it meant that he used to be because he had past on, HOWEVER ~ Sisko states that his father was still a chef (he states this while he’s cooking for his family in a different episode) and when he states that it was hard for him to slowly watch his father decline, (to Odo; trying to comfort him S2 E12) everyone kept saying that it was possible that he meant he just got seriously ill, but you have to listen to the entire sentence, he says: “IN THE END” and that means loss from his fathers death. Nobody normal is going to say: IN THE END of his serious injury, that’s just confusing and senseless. So my conclusion is that the writers initially meant for his father to be past on, but in later seasons felt his father would make a wonderful addition, which YES most certainly did!
Sisko’s Father
- Thread starter 3 of 5
- Start date
That's my interpretation. Star Trek likes absent fathers, and Piller fell in line when he designed Sisko. However, it was still vaguely put, so the could create a bigger family dynamic when they went to Earth.
I had this argument with someone recently. I agree it's not 100% provable, what he said is open to interpretation. Even "in the end" can mean acceptance of the situation, not necessarily death.
But my belief is like you they originally planned for him to be dead then decided to introduce him.
The past tense chef statement someone was trying to argue that he maybe was a chef, then he retired, then working for himself isn't technically a chef blah blah blah. Yes, you can argue all this for the vanity of continuity... but it's much more likely the writers just changed their mind.
But my belief is like you they originally planned for him to be dead then decided to introduce him.
The past tense chef statement someone was trying to argue that he maybe was a chef, then he retired, then working for himself isn't technically a chef blah blah blah. Yes, you can argue all this for the vanity of continuity... but it's much more likely the writers just changed their mind.
Changed their mind or forgot about the earlier episode. That's also a very distinct possibility.
Changed "their" mind, did not forget. That's why they were very specific about Joseph having been very ill recently.
If Starfleet officers can come back from the dead through improbable events, it's not a stretch that civilians can as well.
A few possibilities:
A few possibilities:
- A terminally ill Joseph Sisko was knocking off his bucket list, which included seeing a rare space anomaly up close. His shuttle vanished and was presumed destroyed, until he reappeared a few years later. Trapped in another universe, or a time wibbly, or Fluidic Space, take your pick. By time of his return his disease had a cure, or was cured by the anomaly.
- Joseph Sisko got Tom Rikered at some point. Ben Sisko lost and mourned his father. Some time later, he got surprise news that another Joseph Sisko had been stranded on a planet, since that family vacation 16 years ago with the faulty transporter. Since the other Joe was dead, nothing stopped other-Joe from stepping into his place and rekindling his relationship with his family.
- One of the many time-travel adventures resulted in Joseh Sisko avoiding his original death.
- Q resurrected Joe as a parting gift to Banjamin, for whatever reason
Last edited:
But we've never heard of any such things happening. If the writers wanted us to know something like this happened, there would have been dialog to that effect.
If you're relying on the official TV writers to make "Star Trek" make sense for you, you're in for disappointment.
I don't see the issue or the need for crazy twists.
Ben never said his father was dead. He said his father "was" a gourmet chef. It doesn't take time travel or clones or whatever to say that Joseph was a gourmet chef, and then he wasn't one any more. And then later he went back to the restaurant again.
It might be a retcon of the original implication, but there was nothing definitive they had to ignore. Just squint a little.
Ben never said his father was dead. He said his father "was" a gourmet chef. It doesn't take time travel or clones or whatever to say that Joseph was a gourmet chef, and then he wasn't one any more. And then later he went back to the restaurant again.
It might be a retcon of the original implication, but there was nothing definitive they had to ignore. Just squint a little.
Sisko says something of this nature also when he’s being forced into farming (episode Paradise) I can’t recall his exact words, but he says something like “his dad IS a chef” …
me personally , I like to adopt into any scenarios that can possibly deny any canon misfires 
the fans always seem to better understand and recall every second of every scene, as opposed to a multitude (mostly) of writers. It kills when canons misfire 
great, now I’m hungry I see you use Tosk as your moniker profile pic,[ Colam…Coleam …ColeumI don't see the issue or the need for crazy twists.
Ben never said his father was dead. He said his father "was" a gourmet chef. It doesn't take time travel or clones or whatever to say that Joseph was a gourmet chef, and then he wasn't one any more. And then later he went back to the restaurant again.
It might be a retcon of the original implication, but there was nothing definitive they had to ignore. Just squint a little.
I don’t know the spelling of his name 
forgive me Mr Mea…
…oh dear heavens 
I can’t spell his last name either the actor who plays Miles O’Brian…anyways ~ his favorite episode] I love that episode but I can’t watch it anymore because Tosk’s acceptance of being hunted down as breed prey makes me cry 
perhaps that’s why it’s his favorite, cuz of being so intensely provoking 
(is it not allowed to stray off topic? If so, I’m really sorry…I just love your chosen profile pic 
And~ by that statement alone, one knows that you are oh so very well versed in the entire canon of the Star Trek universe
don’t wander away 
I’ve got so many questions of things that are canon, but I’m still lost
To be fair, writers must deliver great stories, and attention to minutia plays one of the smallest parts in that process. I don't think confusion about the status of Joseph Sisko or the impact on the character was affected by any changes that concretely occurred in Homecoming. And indeed, there are any number of interpretations. Joseph Sisko may have been expected to have retired only from the kitchen, acting as a manager, mingling with the guests and drinking with sexy ladies while Nate slaved away.
omg! Not only have you pointed out possible happenings, but!!! You’ve hit onto something I hadn’t even considered the worm hole aliens (prophets) have NO structured linear paradigm, so since his father was married to Sisko’s worm hole mother ( that just sounds wrong 
) couldn’t they have just manipulated him to be back into THAT time construct? Cuz I’m still confused with first episode and they act like they are 100% JUST finding out about Sisko and linear time frames, yet~ later on we find out they knew his mother and manipulated him into his eventual role as (
yikes! Can’t remember Sisko’s title) what he became. So, with this, we’d have to assume that they initially learned about everything from Sisko, then traveled back in time to make sure his mother had him. Bootstrap temporal mechanics makes eyeball swirls 
Yes! And I feel so much better now cuz of realizing that the wormhole aliens could have manipulated anything… I wrote more about this in a response on this thread. If his mother was one of them, anything was possible
