10 Reason ST:DS9 Misjudged

[dub]

Andymator wrote:

---

you have to understand that is a subjective experience, and isn't inherently "deeper" or more developed.

Sorry man, I didn't mean to sound as if I was saying anybody was right or wrong. Far from it. I was just trying to better articulate what I meant by "deeper" because I felt like I failed in my first attempt. I enjoy all of the perspectives! That's why I'm here!

[Andymator]

JirinPanthosa wrote:

---

Ok, I agree with that. But I don't think it's fair to characterize people's defense of DS9 as saying it's more 'Deep' and too hard for people to understand.

But that's the thing, DS9 doesn't need a defence!

The internet has concocted this story about how DS9 is so misunderstood and nobody paid attention to it while it was on TV and on and on... It's crazy. It didn't happen. Most TV show productions can only dream about attaining the level of success that DS9 had.

JirinPanthosa wrote:

---

And, you did earlier say that you thought the reason for TNG's greater popularity is greater quality.

I didn't say that, and I didn't mean that. If you look at the wording of what I said I think I was pretty clear in what I meant.

"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."

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.

JirinPanthosa wrote:

---

But you're right about the basic reason for the lower ratings. DS9 doesn't entertain the same number of people TNG does. It's not a matter of most people not being able to comprehend it's 'depth' or anything like that. DS9 and TNG are equally 'deep' in different directions. It's a matter of there just being a greater number of people entertained by something light and fun than something dark and critical of human nature.
But, I do think that a lot of people who might have liked it dismissed it too early because it wasn't TNG redux. Because it didn't say 'Humans will evolve past all through their current problems', it said 'Human failings are permanent'. And I'm saying that because it's exactly what I did when the show first aired.

I feel like this is part of the myth, and maybe you're buying into it a little bit too much... that TNG was this light and fluffy romp while DS9 was a bastion of darkness and complexity. I can cite just as many conflicted characters from TNG as I can from DS9. I can cite just as many dark themes and commentaries on the failings of human nature in TNG as I can in DS9. I can cite just as many silly comedic endeavours in TNG as I can in DS9. They're basically two slight variations on the same formula, with minor differences in order to keep the plots feeling fresh.

[Sindatur]

Of course Deep Space Nine was Deeper, it's in the very name of the show. Sorry, just a little joke.

I agree with the general consensus, it simply didn't appeal as much to as many as TNG. I think part of that may be that TNG survived it's rough start, because it was the only game in town, DS9's rough start wasn't as easily forgiven, because TNG had already found it's legs and was going strong. Disclaimer: I personally enjoyed DS9 from the beginning, so, for personal taste, it didn't have a rough start, I enjoyed the Bajoran Politics & Religion and missed that aspect when it dropped into the background

[NKemp3]

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 "The Wire" and "Breaking Bad" haven't been as successful as, say "White Collar" or the new "Dallas" because most average American consumers would likely support the latter group over the former. But does ratings and fan approval represent quality? No and it never has. Some of the very best and most creative TV shows end up lasting a season or less while some of the most ordinary television go on forever (Grey's Anatomy, Criminal Minds, CSI). I suppose it is all subjective anyway but nonetheless I can make a claim that using ratings success as the means to determine the quality of a show is absurd.

Now I will concede is that there is a bit of revisionism going on about the serialization of DS9. Babylon 5 was a true example of a serialized show; DS9 on the other hand never came close to that strict a format. How could it. It was a Trek show and therefore had to follow some previous guidelines as well as follow the orders of the studio which financed it. Nonetheless DS9 did have serial elements that no other Trek show came close to displaying. It relied heavily on continuity and long story arcs.

Personally to me it is the best Trek and I say that as someone who loved TNG like crazy. But I felt DS9 was simply something special back then and to be frank it holds up a lot better now than TNG. Just my opinion but I'm not alone. Since DS9's ending there have been countless people in articles that could have been found online at genre or TV websites and in genre magazine. The only mainstream affirmation that I recall came from TV Guide which wrote, when DS9 ended in 1999, that it was the best of the modern Trek shows. Plenty of people feel that way.

[NKemp3]

Andymator wrote:

---

I feel like this is part of the myth, and maybe you're buying into it a little bit too much... that TNG was this light and fluffy romp while DS9 was a bastion of darkness and complexity. I can cite just as many conflicted characters from TNG as I can from DS9. I can cite just as many dark themes and commentaries on the failings of human nature in TNG as I can in DS9. I can cite just as many silly comedic endeavours in TNG as I can in DS9.

Boy, I would love to bet on that. By all means please list all those more complex TNG characters because I'm sure quite a few of us can have fun with that. When TNG was going off the air and Paramount was putting out those TV specials to celebrate its run I recalled one in which Berman was discussing the change and growth of the TNG characters over the course of seven seasons. A few examples of this "growth" were Riker growing a beard, Troi getting a costume and hair change and Geordi becoming the ship's engineer! Laughable. That ain't growth. The complexity and so-called growth of TNG's characters were superficial at best. And at best a TNG character mave have gone from A to B or perhaps A to C. DS9 had characters that went from A to M or maybe even further. Heck, D9 had recurring characters that displayed more growth and complexity than the main TNG characters did over a span of seven seasons. And don't get me started on where Sisko, Kira and Bashir started off and how they ended up by the final episode of DS9 (as compared to the seven year arc of Picard, Data and Riker).

As for dark themes you had people like Kira the terrorist who made TNG Worf look like a mild saint. Is there anything in TNG that matches Sisko's decisions to use a chemical weapon to posion a planet, be complicit in a murder and a coverup just as long as he could trick a galactic empire to join his side in a war or basically suggest to his commanding officers to do whatever it takes (::cough:: kill ::cough: the leader of an ally empire who was getting in the way? Did TNG tackle terrorism like DS9 did, did it touch upon the religious zealotry like DS9 did, did it show us any of the ugly underbelly of humanity (and Starfleet itself) that DS9 did from time to time? Did TNG ever present a universe in which idealism couldn't work in the end, other than confrontations with the Borg of course? I'm just scratching the surface here and could go on for a long time but I just realized I don't want to be typing this all night.

Granted DS9 wasn't as dark as, say BSG or perhaps even SGU. That is overblown to some extent. But it was a hell of a lot darker than the other Trek shows. It wasn't every Trek's fan cup of tea and I don't begrudge anyone for feeling that way. But let's get real. TNG and DS9 are two totally different shows.

[Andymator]

NKemp3 wrote:

---

And "The Wire" and "Breaking Bad" haven't been as successful as, say "White Collar" or the new "Dallas" because most average American consumers would likely support the latter group over the former. But does ratings and fan approval represent quality? No and it never has. Some of the very best and most creative TV shows end up lasting a season or less while some of the most ordinary television go on forever (Grey's Anatomy, Criminal Minds, CSI). I suppose it is all subjective anyway but nonetheless I can make a claim that using ratings success as the means to determine the quality of a show is absurd.

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.

NKemp3 wrote:

---

Now I will concede is that there is a bit of revisionism going on about the serialization of DS9. Babylon 5 was a true example of a serialized show; DS9 on the other hand never came close to that strict a format. How could it. It was a Trek show and therefore had to follow some previous guidelines as well as follow the orders of the studio which financed it. Nonetheless DS9 did have serial elements that no other Trek show came close to displaying. It relied heavily on continuity and long story arcs.

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

NKemp3 wrote:

---

Personally to me it is the best Trek and I say that as someone who loved TNG like crazy. But I felt DS9 was simply something special back then and to be frank it holds up a lot better now than TNG. Just my opinion but I'm not alone. Since DS9's ending there have been countless people in articles that could have been found online at genre or TV websites and in genre magazine. The only mainstream affirmation that I recall came from TV Guide which wrote, when DS9 ended in 1999, that it was the best of the modern Trek shows. Plenty of people feel that way.

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.

NKemp3 wrote:

---

Boy, I would love to bet on that. By all means please list all those more complex TNG characters because I'm sure quite a few of us can have fun with that.

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

NKemp3 wrote:

---

When TNG was going off the air and Paramount was putting out those TV specials to celebrate its run I recalled one in which Berman was discussing the change and growth of the TNG characters over the course of seven seasons. A few examples of this "growth" were Riker growing a beard, Troi getting a costume and hair change and Geordi becoming the ship's engineer! Laughable. That ain't growth. The complexity and so-called growth of TNG's characters were superficial at best. And at best a TNG character mave have gone from A to B or perhaps A to C. DS9 had characters that went from A to M or maybe even further. Heck, D9 had recurring characters that displayed more growth and complexity than the main TNG characters did over a span of seven seasons. And don't get me started on where Sisko, Kira and Bashir started off and how they ended up by the final episode of DS9 (as compared to the seven year arc of Picard, Data and Riker).

As for dark themes you had people like Kira the terrorist who made TNG Worf look like a mild saint. Is there anything in TNG that matches Sisko's decisions to use a chemical weapon to posion a planet, be complicit in a murder and a coverup just as long as he could trick a galactic empire to join his side in a war or basically suggest to his commanding officers to do whatever it takes (::cough:: kill ::cough: the leader of an ally empire who was getting in the way? Did TNG tackle terrorism like DS9 did, did it touch upon the religious zealotry like DS9 did, did it show us any of the ugly underbelly of humanity (and Starfleet itself) that DS9 did from time to time? Did TNG ever present a universe in which idealism couldn't work in the end, other than confrontations with the Borg of course? I'm just scratching the surface here and could go on for a long time but I just realized I don't want to be typing this all night.

Granted DS9 wasn't as dark as, say BSG or perhaps even SGU. That is overblown to some extent. But it was a hell of a lot darker than the other Trek shows. It wasn't every Trek's fan cup of tea and I don't begrudge anyone for feeling that way. But let's get real. TNG and DS9 are two totally different shows.

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... What are you referring to when you say things like "the ugly underbelly of humanity" or "a universe in which idealism couldn't work in the end"?

As for your three actually specific citings...

NKemp3 wrote:

---

Is there anything in TNG that matches Sisko's decisions to use a chemical weapon to posion a planet, be complicit in a murder and a coverup just as long as he could trick a galactic empire to join his side in a war or basically suggest to his commanding officers to do whatever it takes (::cough:: kill ::cough: the leader of an ally empire who was getting in the way?

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

- 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.

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

And of course, all of this has nothing to do with the point of my initial post, which is that the article is a load of crap. To summarize what I initially intended to say;

- DS9 was not a failure, it was a great success.
- Several of the article's 10 points are demonstrably false.

[BillJ]

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.

At the end of the day, it was a good TV show that I didn't enjoy quite as much as its two predecessors. Hell, I've always felt that TOS is actually the darkest of the Trek series. The first episode dealt with kidnapping and possible forced breeding, the second a man had to kill his best friend and so on. People let the bright uniforms, 60's production values and the sometimes oddly light way certain episodes ended color their judgment the content of the stories themselves.

[dub]

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.

Perhaps you should try an experiment and go over to the TOS message board and say something like this:

TOS was a great show, but come on...Was it really a ground-breaking show? Or was it just an adventure show geared toward kids? I love TOS a whole bunch...but if we're going to be honest TNG had more seasons because TNG turned out to be better to most people than TOS. And there's nothing wrong with that, you know, different strokes.

I bet all of those open minded TOS fans would come back and say, "You know, you're so right. Good point there, buddy. No argument here!"

Seriously though, I rather enjoy the discussion and debate as long as it doesn't get personal. I guess I'm weird like that.

[BillJ]

dub wrote:

---

Perhaps you should try an experiment and go over to the TOS message board and say something like this:

TOS was a great show, but come on...Was it really a ground-breaking show? Or was it just an adventure show geared toward kids? I love TOS a whole bunch...but if we're going to be honest TNG had more seasons because TNG turned out to be better to most people than TOS. And there's nothing wrong with that, you know, different strokes.

I bet all of those open minded TOS fans would come back and say, "You know, you're so right. Good point there, buddy. No argument here!"

Seriously though, I rather enjoy the discussion and debate as long as it doesn't get personal. I guess I'm weird like that.

Well, I did post this in another thread discussing DS9.

BillJ wrote:

---

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.

Over the years, there has been a lot of deconstruction of the myths of TOS. Including its status as a massive ground breaking show.

I say this as the Captain Kirk action figure on my desk looks at my with disapproval.

[NKemp3]

Before I respond to individual points I need to point out that while there has been some talk about revisionism on the part of those talking up DS9, there has also been plenty of revisionism by those defending TNG over the years. This has come about in the wake of more adult sci fi TV like the new BSG, Firefly, Lost, etc. Those doing the defending make claims that TNG was gritty in its own way, that it did tackle the big issues of the day in sophisticated ways, that it also took chances, that it wouldn't shy away from some of the darker qualities of mankind, etc, etc, etc.

Look I love TNG. What it did it did very well, better than anyone else. No other family sci fi show that was almost strictly episodic provided consistent and smart entertaining hours like TNG. Not Stargate and not even the original Trek. In fact TNG may have been better at what it did (providing great episodic television) than DS9 was at what it did (providing a hybrid semi-episodic/semi-serialized TV). Nonetheless Roddenberry's intent was to make TNG a more idealized and a more progressive vehicle than his previous Trek. He did not want conflict, he did not want human failing and immorality, he wanted quick and progressive solutions administered to any conflicts. He had no room for intolerance or religious beliefs when it came to his main (and mostly human) lead characters for this new Enterprise. And while the writers and producers, especially after Roddenberry's death, did their best to maneur around these guidelines, for the most part they kept those guidelines firmly in place.

As a Star Trek nut at the time DS9 came around, I got my hands on every article, every behind-the scenes book, and every magazine that dealt with the Trek franchise. And I would check out the relatively new phenom known as the internet in the immediate following years to get even more of a feedback of what people were saying about Trek. I recall clearly all the criticism thrown by many towards DS9. The criticism would come from professional critics, sci fi novelists being interviewed or the quotes from Trekkers in convention halls. The problem they had with DS9 were : (1)the characters fought too much and therefore not likable; (2) the first season was boring; (3) too much stuff about Bajor and religion and politics which was also boring; (4) the infighting amongs the crew was too different from the smooth sailing of TNG and not what Roddenberry would have wanted for a modern Trek show; (5) they never went anywhere/how could it be a Star Trek show without a ship taking them to different planets; (6)they really liked Quark (the non Starfleet characters were initially the most popular) but could not stomach Ferengi-centered episodes; (7) they wanted more action and were waiting on something bigger to happen; and they didn't care for Sisko and liked Avery Brooks even less.

Also there were quite a number of people who were huge fans of TNG but decided to attach their wagons to Babylon 5 instead of DS9. TNG was like some huge empire whose demise eventually led to multiple factions diving up the old bloc into different territories, including one for Stargate which popped up first on Showtime. People DID Take sides. When VOY came along that was another faction. Yes, there were millions out there who would watch both DS9 and VOY and millions who would watch those shows as well as B5, SG-1 and any other sci fi show they came across (Andromeda). But there were also millions out there who picked only one as worthy as their post-TNG loyalty. That included those who used to watch TNG but then "grew up" by moving on to the new fan fave "The X-Files". Hell, some simply stuck with the TNG movies and/or old eps of TOS and TNG and gave up on all new sci fi TV series in general.

As for the argument over whether DS9 was "darker" the most important point to keep in mind was that was how it was initially sold to the public and mainstream media. You can see such descriptions in those countless TV Guide articles that mag used to do for Trek. Only when there were signs that DS9 wasn't generating the excitement, loyalty and devotion of TNG did TPTB tried to walk back from that description by claiming it was not really any darker than other Trek shows. Whether they were right or wrong they had their motives in defusing that whole "dark" description. By the time VOY arrived on the scene the producers and writers had gotten the message. All those attached to VOY emphasized that the show was going to be more like TNG than DS9, that it was going to go back to the TNG method in which there weren't conflicts (which is why the Maquis was so quickly folded into the Starfleet community on the ship) and that the show was going to follow TNG's approach of planet-hopping every week. They couldn't come out and directly slam DS9 but they indirectly made it clear VOY was to be the anti-DS9 and would not experiment with that show's more darker elements. They kept emphasizing Roddenbery's vision of the future as what they were trying to follow.



Yes, this all happened and most of this is actually mentioned or hinted at in this "10 Reason STS9 was Misjudged" article. I was there to witness this stuff. I had friends and family members who did some of the very things I mentioned above. I had contact to the new message forums on the internet to read remarks by people who didn't care for DS9 and those remarks were similar to the ones covered in this article. So for some of you to claim that the writer is off track with his assessment is a bit much. There were maybe a couple of things he included that didn't belong as well as a couple of examples that he failed to use. But for the most part he got it right. Now if you disagree with those facts I tossed out based upon my own experience and argue that this position of mine is simply my opinion then so be it. But your counters, which I find lacking in evidence, is also merely an opinion. So what makes yours more legit than mine or vice versa?

Halftime is over. I'll come back later to respond to individual posts once I'm done with my game watching.

[NKemp3]

One quick thing to get in while there's a commercial break. Just because the points that the writer argued are legitimate doesn't make those who disliked the show for those same reasons less credible. If DS9 wasn't your cup of tea because of those examples so be it.

[Andymator]

dub wrote:

---

Perhaps you should try an experiment and go over to the TOS message board and say something like this:
TOS was a great show, but come on...Was it really a ground-breaking show? Or was it just an adventure show geared toward kids? I love TOS a whole bunch...but if we're going to be honest TNG had more seasons because TNG turned out to be better to most people than TOS. And there's nothing wrong with that, you know, different strokes.
I bet all of those open minded TOS fans would come back and say, "You know, you're so right. Good point there, buddy. No argument here!"

Seriously though, I rather enjoy the discussion and debate as long as it doesn't get personal. I guess I'm weird like that.

What I would like you to do is seriously ask yourself why you fabricated and inserted this part;

"...was it really a ground-breaking show? Or was it just an adventure show geared toward kids?"

Was there anything analogous in what I was saying to this?

NKemp3 wrote:

---

Before I respond to individual points...

Good god man, I have no idea how to begin addressing this tangential diatribe. Factions split off from TNG?

The topic of discussion is whether the article's presentation of the facts was legitimate or not. Try to stay on point. I maintain that several points in the article can be proven false. I will elaborate if you wish to challenge that statement.

[MacLeod]

DSN like it's parent show TOS, seems to have found a bit more life once it had finished it's original run. That is to say it has gained in popularity a bit, with quite a few saying it's the best of the Trek shows.

Serliased shows have been around for years long before the likes of DSN and B5. So the audiance can and will follow a serialised show. As for why it got lower ratings take your pick :

Time slots
More competition from other genre shows
Dislike of the concept
Slow to get going (yet DSN S1-2 where better in quality that S1-2 of TNG)
etc....

We each have different tastes, perhaps part of the feeling as to why DSN is/was considered mistreated stems back to when it was first announced/produced. Star Trek on a space station how will that work, they won't go anywhere etc...

Yet Star Trek was never so much about the going better exploring the human side of the equation. Visiting the alien planet of the week just allowed the writers to get things past the censors which might not have gotten post them in a contempary setting (true not every episode).

In the end DSN was a success for Paramount, it made them money.

[Dream]

MacLeod wrote:

---

We each have different tastes, perhaps part of the feeling as to why DSN is/was considered mistreated stems back to when it was first announced/produced. Star Trek on a space station how will that work, they won't go anywhere etc...

I would say both TNG and DS9 had a hard time gaining acceptance with fans when they were first announced. At that time when TNG was starting out, many TOS fans were saying it wasn't Trek without Kirk or Spock. The first two seasons being so weak really didn't help either.

ENT also had a really rough start with fans with the whole prequel thing.

VOY had it easy compared to all the other spin offs.

[MacLeod]

VOY had the opposite problem with the high standards of it' predessor shows it had a lot to live upto.