"10 Reasons Deep Space Nine Was Cruelly Misjudged"

[DevilEyes]

A website called whatculture.com today has an article about Deep Space Nine being underrated and ahead of its time. Nothing that hasn't been said many times, but it's still nice to read it somewhere outside of TrekBBS.

http://whatculture.com/tv/star-trek-...-misjudged.php

It's a pretty good article, although their reason #8 makes me want to write "Reasons why DS9 season 2 is cruelly misjudged".

[flemm]

DevilEyes wrote:

---

It's a pretty good article, although their reason #8 makes me want to write "Reasons why DS9 season 2 is cruelly misjudged".

Yeah, I grumbled a bit when I got to that one, too

As you say, nothing really revelatory, but certainly nice to see.

I'm not sure, actually, that DS9 is really misjudged anymore, at least not "cruelly." I think it's pretty widely recognized now, at least among genre fans, as the very good, sometimes great, stylistically and thematically prescient show that it is. Certainly the success and prominence of Ron Moore's BSG, which it obviously influenced very directly, helped with this.

But I guess articles about how a show is/was "cruelly misjudged" is part of the process of the show no longer being that way

[dub]

Thanks for posting that article! A fun read! I love the author's writing style. I laughed out loud a couple of times. Especially this line:

"...the unholy prospect of setting up a week’s worth of VCR programming, a fate I wouldn’t wish even on my most hated, least technically-inclined enemy."

Oh, the good 'ole days of VCRing!

[NKemp3]

DevilEyes wrote:

---

A website called whatculture.com today has an article about Deep Space Nine being underrated and ahead of its time. Nothing that hasn't been said many times, but it's still nice to read it somewhere outside of TrekBBS.

http://whatculture.com/tv/star-trek-...-misjudged.php

It's a pretty good article, although their reason #8 makes me want to write "Reasons why DS9 season 2 is cruelly misjudged".

Yep, I get a little tired of season two of DS9 getting dismissed by some folks. But overall it was a great writeup. And not the only one. There have been dozens of such positive DS9 retrospectives that I've come across over the years.

[timtonruben359]

Great article with a lot of great points. One of the things I agree with is DS9 should have had at least a year before Voyager came on. The third season was really the year I feel DS9 really started to raise the bar and find its footing.
Unfortunately, Star Trek was at its peak and Paramount saw $$ and wanted to milk the franchise for all it was worth.


I'm sick of all the did paramount plagiarize B5 talk. Yes the show had a number of commonalities, but some of DS9's back story was developed on TNG long before Paramount ever got a look at the B5 bible e.g. The Cardassian occupation of Bajor was established in the 4th(ish) season of TNG.

I'm very happy to see that DS9 is starting to get the attention and respect it deserves. I was like so many Trek fans. I loved TNG but gave up on DS9, but with Worf being my favorite TNG character I tuned into DS9 when he joined and I'm glad I did. To me, DS9 is the most adult of the Star Trek spinoffs.

[BillJ]

I'm confused how DS9 was "cruelly misjudged" when it regularly ranked in the syndication top-5 ratings-wise during its run?

[Infern0]

I think the main culprit was the "religion" aspect.

Bajorans on a whole were not interesting to casual fans imo, "Prophets, Pah-Wraiths" I thought DS9 spent a lot of time on them to no avail. As a hardcore fan, I can find that part of DS9 interesting, but I could see the casual TNG fan who maybe watches an episode if he has time would be turned off by that.

I thought DS9 got a lot right, the action scenes and core cast were it's strongest parts, and it knew how to tell a story better than any other Trek in my opinion. Had it dropped the religious undertones and been a little more traditional in that aspect I think it might have had a better interest amongst the casuals.

But all of that is just my opinion.

[BillJ]

Infern0 wrote:

---

I think the main culprit was the "religion" aspect.

Bajorans on a whole were not interesting to casual fans imo, "Prophets, Pah-Wraiths" I thought DS9 spent a lot of time on them to no avail. As a hardcore fan, I can find that part of DS9 interesting, but I could see the casual TNG fan who maybe watches an episode if he has time would be turned off by that.

I thought DS9 got a lot right, the action scenes and core cast were it's strongest parts, and it knew how to tell a story better than any other Trek in my opinion. Had it dropped the religious undertones and been a little more traditional in that aspect I think it might have had a better interest amongst the casuals.

But all of that is just my opinion.

I think the main culprits were a lack of an identifiable "hero" ship (early on) and Nana Visitor (which is why I only tuned in sporadically).

But I think it's utter bullshit that a series that ran for seven years and 178 episodes was somehow "cruelly misjudged". Instead of trying to present a martyr complex, some fans need to simply be thankful that they got to see the story told in a complete fashion. When I think of shows that were mistreated my thoughts go immediately to Star Trek, Firefly and Arrested Development.

Plus the articles number one reason was laughable. It's essentially saying people didn't care enough to either plan to watch when it was aired or too lazy to set their VCR to record it. That means people simply weren't as interested in DS9 as other shows that were on.

At the end of the day, DS9 is much like any other version of Trek. It had its good episodes and bad. Interesting and not so interesting moments. People hiding beneath latex and thoroughly face palming moments...

[Photon]

Al Gore Invents Internet....

[DevilEyes]

BillJ wrote:

---

I think the main culprits were a lack of an identifiable "hero" ship (early on) and Nana Visitor (which is why I only tuned in sporadically).

Nana Visitor is freaking brilliant. Just because you have some sort of hate on for her, doesn't mean that it's some sort of widespread phenomenon among the 90s audience.

But I think it's utter bullshit that a series that ran for seven years and 178 episodes was somehow "cruelly misjudged". Instead of trying to present a martyr complex, some fans need to simply be thankful that they got to see the story told in a complete fashion. When I think of shows that were mistreated my thoughts go immediately to Star Trek, Firefly and Arrested Development.

Firefly was cruelly screwed up by Fox. It wasn't "cruelly misjudged" by the public - it's called one of the greatest or even the greatest SciFi series ever on the regular basis (which is a real exaggeration - I like the show, but, come on). Arrested Development was also screwed up/ignored, but when was it cruelly misjudged? Did you ever see/hear anyone say anything negative about it? All I've ever heard about both these shows were accolades, from the people who are actually aware of them. I've never heard/seen the "Oh, I haven't watched it/have seen 2 episodes, but I've heard it's crap because of *reasons*" kind of comment that you can still see about DS9. Even many very successful shows, movies, books and franchises are "cruelly misjudged" by many people who haven't seen them or have watched one and a half episode.

The only one on that list that can even remotely be called "cruelly misjudged" (or is it? ) is Star Trek due to the perception that it's a show for nerds.

Plus the articles number one reason was laughable. It's essentially saying people didn't care enough to either plan to watch when it was aired or too lazy to set their VCR to record it. That means people simply weren't as interested in DS9 as other shows that were on.

No. It's saying that most other shows were episodic with no continuing storylines that you had to tune in every week at the same time to be able to follow; and therefore, people simply did not have to be all that interested in these shows for them to be successful and get great ratings. And that mattered a lot in the 1990s, before the age of Netflix, Internet downloads and people watching the shows on DVD instead of TV. Shows with continuing storylines are only really flourishing now.

Even in the 2000s, SciFi was forcing Ron Moore to have more standalone episodes in BSG in order to supposedly attract new viewers. And even now, the popularity of shows like CSI in all its versions, Bones or Castle and a bunch of other procedurals shows that episodic TV tends to get good TV ratings because people don't have to be as invested and can just check any episode whenever they want to.

[BillJ]

DevilEyes wrote:

---

Nana Visitor is freaking brilliant.

Brilliance is in the eye of the beholder. For me, she came off as the whiniest freedom fighter ever.

Firefly was cruelly screwed up by Fox. It wasn't "cruelly misjudged" by the public - it's called one of the greatest or even the greatest SciFi series ever on the regular basis (which is a real exaggeration - I like the show, but, come on). Arrested Development was also screwed up/ignored, but when was it cruelly misjudged? Did you ever see/hear anyone say anything negative about it? All I've ever heard about both these shows were accolades, from the people who are actually aware of them. I've never heard/seen the "Oh, I haven't watched it/have seen 2 episodes, but I've heard it's crap because of *reasons*" kind of comment that you can still see about DS9. Even many very successful shows, movies, books and franchises are "cruelly misjudged" by many people who haven't seen them or have watched one and a half episode.

Every show I mentioned has its own set of critics. All you have to do is poke around this board to see that. Are you saying that DS9 should somehow be above various criticisms that get leveled at every TV show since the dawn of the industry?

No. It's saying that most other shows were episodic with no continuing storylines that you had to tune in every week at the same time to be able to follow; and therefore, people simply did not have to be all that interested in these shows for them to be successful and get great ratings. And that mattered a lot in the 1990s, before the age of Netflix, Internet downloads and people watching the shows on DVD instead of TV. Shows with continuing storylines are only really flourishing now.

Popularity of arc storytelling isn't just now becoming popular, been popular for quite a while. When people were interested, they followed arc-based shows religiously. Hell, I made it home everyday at 4pm in the mid-70's just so I wouldn't miss an episode of Star Blazers. And if DS9 had been flourishing on DVD and on Netflix, we wouldn't have all this hand wringing over whether or not it is going to get an HD facelift. That popularity would've made the decision a no-brainer for CBS.

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine was a solidly entertaining TV show. But much like Star Trek it wasn't any bolder than much of the TV on during the same period of time. It's something fans tell themselves to make their show seem more important in the grand scheme of things than it really is.

[RandyS]

dub wrote:

---

Thanks for posting that article! A fun read! I love the author's writing style. I laughed out loud a couple of times. Especially this line:

"...the unholy prospect of setting up a week’s worth of VCR programming, a fate I wouldn’t wish even on my most hated, least technically-inclined enemy."

Oh, the good 'ole days of VCRing!

The person who wrote that quote is nuts. The VCR was the single simplest machine ever devised. Programming it was no trouble at all.

And yeah, I miss those days too.

[RandyS]

[QUOTE=BillJ;7661092]

DevilEyes wrote:

---

Nana Visitor is freaking brilliant.

Brilliance is in the eye of the beholder. For me, she came off as the whiniest freedom fighter ever.
[QUOTE]

Not only that, but for some reason, she repeatedly, erroneously, referred to herself as a terrorist, which I never understood. The Cardassians were the terrorists, not the Bajorans.

[DevilEyes]

BillJ wrote:

---

Brilliance is in the eye of the beholder. For me, she came off as the whiniest freedom fighter ever.

This reminds me of this old list posted by penknife on Livejournal (take a note of point 5):

penknife and posted on Livejournal would come in handy:

1) Any female character who is as capable and unusually talented as the male characters is a Mary Sue.

2) Any female character who is not as capable and unusually talented as the male characters is weak and uninteresting.

3) Any female character who develops new skills over time is a Mary Sue, no matter how she learned those skills or how strong her motivation to do so.

4) Any female character who has bad things happen to her is just trying to be the center of attention.

5) If she ever complains about those things, she's also whiny.

6) Any female character who pursues a male character who initially rejects her is either predatory or pathetic. (Any male character who pursues a female character who initially rejects him is either charming or a tragic woobie.)

7) Any female character who rejects a male character who is beloved by fans is cruel and heartless, whether or not she has any interest in him herself.

8) Any female character who lacks serious character flaws is too unrealistic to be interesting.

9) Any female character who has serious character flaws is unlikable because of them, even if beloved male characters have the same or equivalent flaws.

10) However, the majority of criticisms of her will ignore those flaws entirely in favor of calling her a slut or a whore.

11) Any female character who actually has multiple relationships in canon is a slut or a whore.

12) It's infinitely more important whether a female character is a slut or a whore than whether she commits actual crimes or kills people.

BillJ wrote:

---

Every show I mentioned has its own set of critics. All you have to do is poke around this board to see that. Are you saying that DS9 should somehow be above various criticisms that get leveled at every TV show since the dawn of the industry?

The article obviously isn't about the valid criticisms, but about the prejudgements and prejudices by people who haven't even watched much, if any, of the show.

BillJ wrote:

---

Popularity of arc storytelling isn't just now becoming popular, been popular for quite a while. When people were interested, they followed arc-based shows religiously. Hell, I made it home everyday at 4pm in the mid-70's just so I wouldn't miss an episode of Star Blazers. And if DS9 had been flourishing on DVD and on Netflix, we wouldn't have all this hand wringing over whether or not it is going to get an HD facelift. That popularity would've made the decision a no-brainer for CBS.

Actually, the networks were scared of arc storytelling supposedly turning off new viewers even in the 2000s, as I've already pointed out.

The people who follow any show religiously are always a minority, however big or small it may be. These are the "fans", people who love the show and are obsessed with it. They are enough to make a show a cult hit and keep it on the air for some time, sometimes long enough for it to have 7 seasons. Pretty much all of Star Trek shows fall into that category, with the exception of TNG, which was the only one to really attract a lot of casual viewers. But it's attracting the casual viewers that's the deciding factor in getting big ratings. And casual viewers tend to prefer episodic TV, especially if they don't have Netflix, downloads etc. This is the difference between a cult show like Firefly and a hit show like CSI.

RandyS wrote:

---

Not only that, but for some reason, she repeatedly, erroneously, referred to herself as a terrorist, which I never understood. The Cardassians were the terrorists, not the Bajorans.

You really have no idea what a terrorist is, do you?

One of the things I love about DS9 is that they never sugarcoated it and called Kira a "freedom fighter" but told it as it is, even though she was a heroine and the Bajoran Resistance was portrayed sympathetically.

[flemm]

DevilEyes wrote:

---

Nana Visitor is freaking brilliant.

Yes, she is

That some people would have found her off-putting doesn't detract from that at all. On the contrary.