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 would say don't waste your breath but I don't want to be rude like BillJ who must have rushed over here to spread truth to the rest of us idiots.
As for Andymator...no point in even reading his stuff further because in my view he has failed to make his case with any credible evidence. All we get I'm afraid are weak arguments that fail to contradict what the writer of the article stated. Thus we are going in circles even by debating him. And the rebuttals that we get from Andymator is stuff such as Picard being taken over by the Borg as proof that TNG was equally willing to venture into darker territory. Give me a break. To me the thing that helps makes TNG great is ultimately its idealism. That makes it corny to some folks as well but different strokes for different folks. Why the revisionism all of a sudden about TNG's complexity and darker elements? The only thing I can think of is that some TNG and even TOS fans get insecure when people out there make claims (which are merely opinions) that DS9 is the superior show.
If Andymator had simply stopped at pointing out that DS9 is nowhere near a serialized as some folks make it out to be he would have had a winning case. Instead he himself becomes, respectfully, a tad revisionist by insisting TNG relied just as much on continuity, character development, complexity and risk taking as DS9 (and then denies doing so!). Worse of all the writer of the article that led to this thread listed at least 8 items that Trek and casual fans during the 90s actually complained about or mentioned as reasons why they did not support DS9. These gripes were common knowledge. Yet Andymator insists that the article was nothing more than made up ramblings which suggests that the rest of us were imagining all the whining that went on about Deep Space Nine during its run. Considering Andymator has, as far as I'm concerned, failed to back up his spin on events all he is doing is taking a thread hostage in order to express his singular viewpoint. But that's just my
opinion. Nothing personal against the guy.
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.
Here's another example. Halfway through the seventh season "Shadows and Symbols" Sisko freezes before he opens the Orb of the Emissary and all of a sudden the scene shifts to a padlocked room with a character named Benny Russell
writing a story on a wall. It is a great moment that ends up playing a major part in how the confrontations of the episode are concluded. But it also comes out of the blue with no explanation of Russell's significance to Sisko's story arc or any hint ahead of the time that this plotline would even play a role in the episode at all. You would have to had followed DS9 and recognize Benny Russell as a (possibly) figment character of Sisko's imagination from a stand-alone episode of the previous season
of the show to understand what it all meant. Otherwise a viewer wouldn't have a clue of what to make out of those important scenes in "Shadows and Symbols" because the writers never took the time to explain them. That's strong continuity. Period. And there is nothing that I recall like it that took place during the TV run of any other Trek show (although I do admit I haven't seen every episode of Enterprise). Does that make the other Trek series inferior? No. But let's not pretend those other Trek shows relied on such continuity and heavy doses of serialization as DS9 did.