10 Reason ST:DS9 Misjudged

[JirinPanthosa]

TOS thrived on the strength of the chemistry between the main characters. The premises of the episodes were incredibly base scifi 'what-ifs'. The only thing that sets it apart form other science fiction shows is that it approached it from the standpoint of the logic versus humanism.

It's true DS9 was originally judged because the premise was different, but that's no longer the case. The fact that it doesn't have a ship is not a concern to new fans.

But the plain simple fact is, there are 20 million TV fans who want an idealistic adventure show and 3 million who want a dark show that criticizes human nature. That's the only reason for difference in the ratings.

TNG and DS9 are both spectacular shows.

[NKemp3]

Andymator wrote:

---

Perhaps you're confused... because that wasn't what I claimed at all. Lucky for me it's all right there in the thread's previous posts for you to go back and read rather than waste time re-iterating my points again.

Maybe then you should do a better job at making your point because I'm not the only one in this thread who took that as your meaning.

[QUOTE]
You can repeat that all you want, it doesn't make it true.[QUOTE]

Seriously? That's the road you are going down? Because the same thing can be said about your view. Is this the game you want to waste time playing?

DS9 dabbled in some very conservative serialization in rare instances, but consisted of a majority of stand alone stories and relied no more heavily on continuity than TNG.

Nonsense. By the very nature of it being a show that took place on a station which rotated in the same section of space meant it had no choice but to rely more heavily on continuity and on a semi-state of serialization. To claim that it didn't do so any more than TNG suggests you are in a state of denial; you are taking a position that no person who writes reviews or commentaries of the show ever takes.

Now of course through dictate from Paramount DS9 had to remain in theory an episodic show with its own number of self-contained storylines, something that would make it easier for any casual viewer to drop into any showing of DS9 and not be confused. But the thing is countless folks still complained about being confused when doing just that. DS9 was never as accessible a show as TNG and TOS because there was always so much more back story and the characters themselves could be different from season to season. Not to mention backdrops, relationships, alliances, political statuses are constantly in flux. For the first five or possibly six seasons it is almost as if TPTB did a reset at the beginning of the year. That makes it practically a requirement to rebroadcast the eps in order to not throw off more casual viewers. Otherwise you tune in one day and Kira and Sisko are at each others' throats and the next episode the two of them are having a sober conversation about faith in the Prophets. One episode the series regulars are all on DS9 the next they are scattered throughout the galaxy after The Federation was forced to abandon the station. One episode it is peace time in which the Federation is trying to help lead Bajor to a better future and the next the Federation's future is in jeopardy as the war with the Dominion is not going well. One episode Dukat is an ally to Sisko and his crew and the Klingons are the major threat, the next the Klingons are Sisko and his crew's most reliable allies and Dukat is now part of great threat to the Federation and the rest of the Alpha Quadrant.

I've never argued that Deep Space Nine was a truly serial show like BSG or even B5. But it has far more serial elements than TNG. First of all DS9 was a Trek show that first introduced a three-parter. It then brought to Trek a six-parter that was preceded by two episodes that led to that six parter and succeeding hour episode coming after that six-parter that immediately followed up and wrapped up all that occurred before (essentially making it a nine-part arc). And then there was a final ten hour wrap up that was truly serialized (the whole final season would have been serialized like that if Paramount had agreed). Once more....please tell me the examples of TNG coming close to doing anything like that.

DS9 was more likely to make use of continuity. That's why Sisko and Kira could spend the entire first season being at odds and distrustful of one another before coming to some kind of truce in the final episode of the season. Where is the TNG equivalent of that? During season five Odo can adjust to no longer having his shapeshifting abilities for about a 1/3 of a year before regaining them. On TNG that would all happened and been over in a span no longer than a two-parter. On DS9 Sisko's slow acceptance and growing comfort over his role as Emissary occurred year from year. What's the TNG equivalent? Unlike TNG which would introduce a galactic showdown in a season ender only to conclude it in the season opener of the following season, DS9 provided a conflict with the Klingons that lasted one entire season, a buildup of antagonism with the Dominion that brewed over the course of three years and an all-out galactic war involving Dominion that lasted two whole seasons. DS9 also had roughly 20 recurring characters on heavy rotation who were either forever affected by game-changing events in some cases or whose presence forever altered the path of individuals and empires in other cases. That is what you call continuity.

It seems like you're trying to convince me that DS9 is a good show... you really should go back and take your time reading my posts. I am a huge fan of DS9.

You know if you have to resort to condescending retorts you already lost the argument. Stick to your points if you have any. I know you are a fan of DS9. I can read after all. I wouldn't waste my time trying to convince anyone that DS9 is a good show anyway. That is something I stopped doing during the 90s. And besides liking or disliking the show is all subjective and therefore totally dependent on a person's tastes.

Please go back read what I actually was saying, instead of letting your kneejerk....

For God's sake take your own advice and reread your own posts. Because you were clearly arguing that DS9 was no more complex than TNG. Stop shifting the goal posts at every opportunity. That wastes both of our time.

I have not claimed that the TNG characters were more complex, just that there are plenty of conflicted characters on TNG, just as on DS9. Picard, Worf, O'Brien, Ro, etc...

How is Picard conflicted again? Oh, never mind. Look I’m not saying there aren't any conflicted characters on TNG. I'm saying there was very little conflict between them, that the number of conflicted characters were small compared to DS9 and that the conflicts that the TNG characters faced tended to be less of a focus of the writers.

What does that even mean? How on earth are you measuring A to C or A to M? This is nonsense. You're talking in vague descriptors and buzzwords...

In other words if you don't have a rebuttal simply redirect and act dumb while accusing the other guy of strawman arguments. Very well. You can't go around stating that A is no different than C and A is no different than M and then claim ignorance of why I'm going down that path in the first place by countering that uninformed theory. Nice try though.

As for your three actually specific citings...


- Captain Picard has his consciousness usurped and murders thousands of people in "The Best of Both Worlds II".

Goodness. That's so lame. Picard had no control of those events. He may feel guilty over it and the writers may milk the whole pathos of the situation in order to give Patrick Stewart more opportunities to impressively emote for the cameras, but in the end he didn't have free will. Ultimately it wasn't his fault otherwise he would have been booted out of Starfleet and TNG fans wouldn't have been so angry at Sisko for holding an unreasonable grudge against the man. Speaking of Sisko when he crosses the line he may do so under stress and he may expertly justify the ends, but he had free will when making taking such questionable actions. That's more risky than the TNG method of removing the blame from the protagonist's hands

- Data decides to kill a sentient man in "The Most Toys". He doesn't get to be sort-of somewhat partially responsible for that decision.

But Data doesn't kill Fajo so to some extent it is a safe copout. TPTB seemed more interested in showing that Data was capable of an almost human emotional reaction after witnessing Fajo murder the woman who was helping Data escape. Did something ever develop out of this? Did Data become more vengeful and more prone to violence after this incident? Was there any followup? No all around.

- In "Reunion" Worf kills one of two candidates for the leader of the klingon empire in retalliation for the murder of his mate.

Now that is a good example and one of the few in which a TNG main character did not respond in a way that we would expect TNG era Starfleet folks too respond. Kinda like that time in which Worf refused to give his blood to help a badly injured Romulan in need of an infusion to live. Or when Worf abandon his duty to Starfleet by resigning in order to fight alongside his brother on a Klingon ship. Oh, wait. Notice a pattern? Whenever TNG wanted someone to go rogue and actually act like a conflicted human being the writers used Worf. Because his being Klingon, despite being raised by human parents, allowed them to justify his actions to the audience. They needed an alien to present someone with recognizably flawed human characteristics. Funny how DS9 did that with its human characters as well as its alien ones.


This was fun and all but we appear to be going in circles and obviously will not see eye-to-eye. Peace. Live Long and Prosper and all that stuff.

[NKemp3]

BillJ wrote:

---

No sense in wasting your breath.

You have a group of devoted DS9 fans that are convinced it was nailed upon the cross and died for our Trek sins.

And you have a collection of arrogant, dismissive individuals who think they can paint a portion of fans of a show with a broad brush.

I for one am a huge DS9 fan who does not come close to having the opinion that you implied. Besides long ago I stopped caring what others thought of DS9. If someone doesn't like it, oh well, the world still goes on. I grew up on TOS, TNG and later DS9. I will always love all three shows. Nonetheless I can still agree with the writer of the article because that writer, like me, doesn't appear to have any amnomosity towards those who have rejected DS9. He and I both agree however on the reasons why fans may not have warmed up to the show. And as I made clear in a previous post those reasons are perfectly acceptable. Move on and stop being insecure when DS9 fans have the audacity to enjoy positive writeups of the show.

[Andymator]

NKemp3 wrote:

---

Maybe then you should do a better job at making your point because I'm not the only one in this thread who took that as your meaning.

There is no possible way for me to do a better job than coming right out and clearly stating that I feel the quality and skill in the execution of Deep Space Nine was just as good as The Next Generation, and that different people having differing tastes is what led to the bit of disparity between the two show's level of success.

NKemp3 wrote:

---

Seriously? That's the road you are going down? Because the same thing can be said about your view. Is this the game you want to waste time playing?

That would be a scathing retort if I had just kept repeating "DS9 is not heavily serialized, it's episodic!"

Unfortunately for you that's not what I did. I claimed that DS9 was heavily episodic, with a minor serialization element. Then when challenged on this I provided figures to back up my claim. I don't believe any objective person would call a show with over 150 stand alone stories of it's 170-something episodes a serial. Or even "heavily serialized" for that matter, let alone point to that as a reason said show was unfairly shunned.

But here's the crazy part... even if the episode ratio was heavily tipped in favour of serialized storytelling, that STILL wouldn't be a valid reason for the show's imagined lack of deserved success. The "X-files" was a comparable property with even more serialization than DS9 airing at the same time, and it did EVEN Better than TNG! Surely that would prove the presence of serialization in storytelling cannot be responsible for limiting the audience in a meaningful way.

NKemp3 wrote:

---

Nonsense. By the very nature of it being a show that took place on a station which rotated in the same section of space meant it had no choice but to rely more heavily on continuity and on a semi-state of serialization. To claim that it didn't do so any more than TNG suggests you are in a state of denial; you are taking a position that no person who writes reviews or commentaries of the show ever takes.

Continuity and serialization are not the same thing. I have NEVER claimed that TNG had any serialization integrated into it's format. It however had all kinds of continuity.

NKemp3 wrote:

---

Now of course through dictate from Paramount DS9 had to remain in theory an episodic show with its own number of self-contained storylines, something that would make it easier for any casual viewer to drop into any showing of DS9 and not be confused. But the thing is countless folks still complained about being confused when doing just that. DS9 was never as accessible a show as TNG and TOS because there was always so much more back story and the characters themselves could be different from season to season. Not to mention backdrops, relationships, alliances, political statuses are constantly in flux. For the first five or possibly six seasons it is almost as if TPTB did a reset at the beginning of the year. That makes it practically a requirement to rebroadcast the eps in order to not throw off more casual viewers. Otherwise you tune in one day and Kira and Sisko are at each others' throats and the next episode the two of them are having a sober conversation about faith in the Prophets. One episode the series regulars are all on DS9 the next they are scattered throughout the galaxy after The Federation was forced to abandon the station. One episode it is peace time in which the Federation is trying to help lead Bajor to a better future and the next the Federation's future is in jeopardy as the war with the Dominion is not going well. One episode Dukat is an ally to Sisko and his crew and the Klingons are the major threat, the next the Klingons are Sisko and his crew's most reliable allies and Dukat is now part of great threat to the Federation and the rest of the Alpha Quadrant.

Yes that's called continuity, and it doesn't alienate anybody. Things evolve over the course of a show. You could tune in one day and Ross and Rachel are kissing in the corner, and then you tune in another day and he's engaged to some british chick... HOW DEEP I CAN'T POSSIBLY FOLLOW THIS SHOW!

NKemp3 wrote:

---

I've never argued that Deep Space Nine was a truly serial show like BSG or even B5. But it has far more serial elements than TNG. First of all DS9 was a Trek show that first introduced a three-parter. It then brought to Trek a six-parter that was preceded by two episodes that led to that six parter and succeeding hour episode coming after that six-parter that immediately followed up and wrapped up all that occurred before (essentially making it a nine-part arc). And then there was a final ten hour wrap up that was truly serialized (the whole final season would have been serialized like that if Paramount had agreed). Once more....please tell me the examples of TNG coming close to doing anything like that.

When did I claim TNG did? Serialization and continuity are not the same thing. It appears from the facts you're citing here that you're in complete agreement with me, and yet you're spouting them as if you're in opposition to my sentiment?

NKemp3 wrote:

---

DS9 was more likely to make use of continuity. That's why Sisko and Kira could spend the entire first season being at odds and distrustful of one another before coming to some kind of truce in the final episode of the season. Where is the TNG equivalent of that?

Picard and Q.

NKemp3 wrote:

---

During season five Odo can adjust to no longer having his shapeshifting abilities for about a 1/3 of a year before regaining them. On TNG that would all happened and been over in a span no longer than a two-parter.

On TNG Worf can adjust to becoming a father for a hell of a lot longer than 1/3rd of a year.

NKemp3 wrote:

---

On DS9 Sisko's slow acceptance and growing comfort over his role as Emissary occurred year from year. What's the TNG equivalent?

On TNG Picard's slow acceptance and growing comfort with his role as leader occured from year to year, culminating in his willingness to open himself and connect with those under his command.

NKemp3 wrote:

---

Unlike TNG which would introduce a galactic showdown in a season ender only to conclude it in the season opener of the following season, DS9 provided a conflict with the Klingons that lasted one entire season, a buildup of antagonism with the Dominion that brewed over the course of three years and an all-out galactic war involving Dominion that lasted two whole seasons.

The looming threat of the borg built for a year and a half, climaxing in an all out invasion and then a few more years of looming threat. That didn't go away just because there was no formal declaration of war. Not to mention managing the tensions between the Federation and Cardassian Union, and the Federation and the Romulan Empire. These things were treated with the same amount of continuity as they would have been had the Federation been in a state of war with these entities i.e. A few episodes here and there dealing with the situation in between unrelated stories. Just like Deep Space Nine.

NKemp3 wrote:

---

DS9 also had roughly 20 recurring characters on heavy rotation who were either forever affected by game-changing events in some cases or whose presence forever altered the path of individuals and empires in other cases. That is what you call continuity.

I disagree. Deep Space Nine has great recurring and guest characters, but most of them were not changed during the show's run. How was Morn or Joseph Sisko or Vic Fontaine or Admiral Ross forever affected by game-changing events? There were also great ones who really did go through some ordeals during the show really shaking up their status quo. Nog, Garak, Dukat, etc. Just like Wesley Crusher, Ensign Ro, Q, etc. That IS what I call continuity.

NKemp3 wrote:

---

You know if you have to resort to condescending retorts you already lost the argument. Stick to your points if you have any. I know you are a fan of DS9. I can read after all. I wouldn't waste my time trying to convince anyone that DS9 is a good show anyway. That is something I stopped doing during the 90s. And besides liking or disliking the show is all subjective and therefore totally dependent on a person's tastes.

That wasn't condescending... I hadn't adressed you at all, and you went out of your way to basically tell me how you prefer DS9 to TNG and that you're not alone in that opinion, as if that was somehow relevant, despite the fact that two posts earlier I had said this;

"I prefer TNG (only by an infinitesimal margin), but I honestly couldn't find any fault with anyone who's taste led them to prefer DS9."

Let me say it again... it's irrelevant. If pointing that out means I've lost the argument, then congratulations.

NKemp3 wrote:

---

For God's sake take your own advice and reread your own posts. Because you were clearly arguing that DS9 was no more complex than TNG. Stop shifting the goal posts at every opportunity. That wastes both of our time.

Let me paraphrase this to break it down nice and simply for you and anybody reading this...


ME: Both TNG and DS9 have conflicted characters, one is not more conflicted than the other.

YOU: By all means please list all these more complex TNG characters because me and my buddies will make fun of them!

ME: That's not what I said... I never claimed that TNG has more complex characters than DS9...

YOU: Stop shifting the goal posts!


... okay?


The rest of your post seems designed to try and dismiss the 3 examples I provided when you requested them. All I can say is that they speak for themselves. They are all complex and difficult situations for the characters involved in them. If you feel that Picard's ordeal in The Best Of Both Worlds was dramatically impotent and less important because he was forced to do these terrible things instead of choosing to do them, then I don't think you'll understand my reasons for disagreeing. If you think that because Data didn't become a vicious killer after pulling the trigger on Kivas Fajo or because he was pulled out before the weapon fired the story is somehow less dark and complex than other examples you cited, then I'm not sure there's anything I can say to convince you otherwise.

I, on the other hand, am not going to try and diminish some of the cool dilemmas set up in DS9 like "In the Pale Moonlight" or "For the Uniform". These are just as good as the great ones TNG threw at us. Totally awesome.

[JirinPanthosa]

Andymator wrote:

---

I love Deep Space Nine a whole bunch... but if we're going to be honest it wasn't as successful as TNG because for most people it wasn't as good as TNG. And there's nothing wrong with that, different strokes for different folks as they say...

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.

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.

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.

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.

[BillJ]

NKemp3 wrote:

---

First of all DS9 was a Trek show that first introduced a three-parter.

I'd argue that TNG had the first Trek three-parter with The Best of Both Worlds I/II and Family. And those episodes were part of a bigger arc starting with Encounter at Farpoint about humanities place in the universe.

[Andymator]

JirinPanthosa wrote:

---

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:

---

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:

---

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:

---

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?

[NKemp3]

JirinPanthosa wrote:

---

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.

[NKemp3]

BillJ wrote:

---

I'd argue that TNG had the first Trek three-parter with The Best of Both Worlds I/II and Family. And those episodes were part of a bigger arc starting with Encounter at Farpoint about humanities place in the universe.

And I would argue that not Berman, not Piller nor any of the promotion department folks at Paramount EVER advertised those episodes as a three-parter. That would be just as silly as saying "In the Hands of the Prophets", DS9's first season finale that led to the three-parter that opened its second season, was actually the first chapter of a four-part episodic run of DS9. But no one here is silly enough to do that.

Go take it up with both Berman and Piller who in media promotions/interviews declared DS9's second season The Circle Trilogy as the first three-parter of Star Trek. This was how it was reported in the pages of TV Guide, USA Today and now defunct genre magazines. TPTB was trying to regenerate buzz for DS9 and so they intentionally came up with the idea of doing a three-part storyline for the first time in Trek history to open up season #2.

[BillJ]

NKemp3 wrote:

---

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.

I said a portion of the fan base. Guess what? Every fan base has those nuts. But I won't let facts get in the way of you nailing yourself up on the cross.

NKemp3 wrote:

---

And I would argue that not Berman, not Piller nor any of the promotion department folks at Paramount EVER advertised those episodes as a three-parter. That would be just as silly as saying "In the Hands of the Prophets", DS9's first season finale that led to the three-parter that opened its second season, was actually the first chapter of a four-part episodic run of DS9. But no one here is silly enough to do that.

Go take it up with both Berman and Piller who in media promotions/interviews declared DS9's second season The Circle Trilogy as the first three-parter of Star Trek. This was how it was reported in the pages of TV Guide, USA Today and now defunct genre magazines. TPTB was trying to regenerate buzz for DS9 and so they intentionally came up with the idea of doing a three-part storyline for the first time in Trek history to open up season #2.

I don't need Rick Berman to tell me that an episode is part of a three-parter to realize that's what it is. Family builds directly off of the events of The Best of Both Worlds II, The Best of Both Worlds II builds directly off of the events of The Best of Both Worlds I. Sounds like a three-parter to me. But your mileage may vary.

And I see no problem calling In the Hands of the Prophets the first part of the Circle trilogy.

[MacLeod]

I think the difference with BOBW and Family and The Cricle triology, is that in the former the story told in Family is linked to events in BOBW but not part of the stroy told in BOBW, whilst The Circle trilogy tells one story

[Andymator]

NKemp3 wrote:

---

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 ...

Heheheheh, clever. Surely nobody will notice it if you do it this way!

NKemp3 wrote:

---

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.

You do know how a debate works, right?

I claimed that several of the articles points are false. So far the one that people seem to disagree with me on is this one;

"#1: Serialized, not episodic."

And I belive I have proven my point on how this isn't true, so no need to get into it again.

NKemp3 wrote:

---

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!).

Please quote the relevant post where I deny doing this.

You are once again confusing serialization with continuity, and now also characterization and complexity and risk taking...

I maintain that both TNG and DS9 have rich continuity / characterization / complexity / risk taking. To claim either is somehow the clear leader in any of these critieria is rediculous. They're overwhelmingly just different flavours of the same damn formula.

I also maintain that one of the differences between the two productions is that TNG did not engage in serialization of it's episode format, and DS9 did on three occassions during it's run.

NKemp3 wrote:

---

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.

A small minority of people *always* say these kind of things, that's where the misinformation actually comes from. They did it with the Motion Picture, with the Wrath of Khan, with TNG, etc etc all the way up to the recent 2009 film. That does not equate to having any meaningful impact on the show's success. My contention is not that nobody ever thought these things, it's that most people didn't think these things, and the high DS9 viewing numbers support this.

Can you imagine in 20 years somebody writing an article about how unfairly JJ Abrams "Star Trek" was treated because a tiny vocal fraction of people on the internet had complaints about it? Sure, it didn't get to "Avengers" or "Dark Knight" levels of proliferation or box office numbers, but that had no correlation to the guys and girls on the Trek BBS whining about canon violations and tonal differences with their favorite version of Star Trek. It did great, and should be remembered and celebrated for what it was.

[jmiller]

DalekJim wrote:

---

It wasn't as successful as TNG because it wasn't as broad and was too complex for most viewers. Nothing to do with quality. If somebody tuned in to TNG for the first time during S6 they'd understand pretty much everything. If a new viewer tuned in to DS9 S6 they'd be utterly lost.

And that's not a bad thing. Not every show should aim to please everybody. Risks should be taken.

Well said. I'll say, I was a kid when TNG came out, and only slightly older when DS9 came on. TNG was on at 8 or 9 PM, DS9 wasn't on until 11:00 in Kansas City. Also, as an 8 year old, it's a heck of a lot easier to follow TNG than DS9, it was the cultural phenomenon, DS9 was a "spin-off". If both had aired in the age of DVR and internet viewing, DS9 would have been adored by the masses.

[BillJ]

jmiller wrote:

---

If both had aired in the age of DVR and internet viewing, DS9 would have been adored by the masses.

Because a VCR could only record one show per week.

The revisionism is getting pretty deep in here...

[tomalak301]

I wonder what would happen if we all woke up tomorrow and instead of streaming and DVRs we all had to use VCRs. Would our society still be able to function? To say that DS9 would have been accessable to a much broader audience today is wrong and laughable.

And I'm starting to feel old in that I remember what life was like with the VCR. Those were simpler times.