View Single Post
Old February 10 2013, 11:58 PM   #37
Andymator
Lieutenant Commander
 
Andymator's Avatar
 
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Re: 10 Reason ST:DS9 Misjudged

JirinPanthosa wrote: View Post

Andymator, you keep reiterating this argument that everybody thinks 'People didn't like DS9 because it was too deep, too complex, too above their heads!' In this entire thread maybe one person has actually said that.
I don't keep reiterating this argument that everybody thinks 'People didn't like DS9 because it was too deep, too complex, too above their heads!', I stated that the article said it and that it was incorrect, and then I've been responding to multiple challenges to my assertation.

Is this not accurate?

This thread isn't about this thread, it's about the "10 Reasons Deep Space Nine Was Cruelly Misjudged" article.

JirinPanthosa wrote: View Post

The rest of us are saying, scope of appeal and size of appeal are two different elements. A lot more people watched Survivor than The Sopranos, but the people who watched The Sopranos got a whole lot more on average out of it. In this case, a lot more people watched TNG, but the DS9 viewers got the same amount on average as the TNG viewers. Is quality of a show a measure of width or height? I say height. And if you say width, be prepared to defend Justin Bieber.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. You're agreeing with me I think?

JirinPanthosa wrote: View Post

Nobody is saying that every TNG character had complete amnesia between episodes. There were arcs, there was character development over time. Most of that development was limited to the main cast, and the only exceptions are really O'Brien and Ro. DS9 had development for most of its huge secondary cast.

And, nobody is saying DS9 had absolute linkage between every single episode whereas TNG had a total reset every week. It did, however, base a great deal of its standalone episodes on previously established storylines, and the amount of background information you needed to get solid footing in the story was far higher, even for most of the standalones. Look at a standalone episode like The Ship. How can you possibly understand why the Gem Hadar and the Vorta act the way they knowing the things established in To The Death? Without that information, the resolution would not make any sense, and it's the same with Rocks and Shoals. And then there's Rapture, it's a standalone episode but none of it makes any sense if you don't know the entire history of Sisko being the Emissary. TNG had arcs like Sins of the Father/Reunion/Redemption, but in general, any episode can be watched with a completely blank slate and gotten completely.
I disagree. I don't feel you need to watch "To The Death" to grasp the story of "The Ship" any more than you have to watch "Skin of Evil" to grasp the story of "Yesterday's Enterprise". It adds alot for those who do catch every episode, but the stories are structured to tell you everything you need to know during the 44 minute runtime.

JirinPanthosa wrote: View Post

Rocks and Shoals is not deeper, more complex, or better television than Cause and Effect. But you do need a lot more previously established information to know what's going on. And that's all people are really arguing.
"Rocks and Shoals" definitely utilizes more backstory than "Cause and Effect", but you're cherry picking episodes to strengthen your argument. Does it utilize more backstory than "Family" or "Redemption II"?

People seem to be taking my objection to the article as some kind of personal attack... and then getting caught up in minutia like Deep Space Nine has 26.5 recurring characters and TNG only 17.2 recurring characters... really? REALLY? How does this have anything to do with my assertation that the article isn't accurate?

And for that matter why do people keep trying assign sentiments to the things I've said that clearly aren't there? I.e. Deep Space Nine isn't a complex show, or TNG is more complex than DS9?
Andymator is offline   Reply With Quote