Oh god, how good would it be if they managed to cast Martin Sheen in the next Star Trek film?!!
DS9 Fans: The Bane of Our Very Existence - Part 9,782
- Thread starter Thestral
- Start date
And waste the man's considerable talent? 
Then we must celebrate with Pink Squirrel Suzys!"DS9 and VGR fans reach a concordat via the West Wing"
It couldn't be more wasted than it was in B5's "River of Souls".
As for Kirk being a Captain, he was only at the Academy for 3 years (as in, he wasn't even an Ensign yet) and his heroics made him a Captain before he graduated even. That's what I didn't like. I can buy Spock as a Commander already because he's always been older than Kirk.
As for Kirk being a Captain, he was only at the Academy for 3 years (as in, he wasn't even an Ensign yet) and his heroics made him a Captain before he graduated even. That's what I didn't like. I can buy Spock as a Commander already because he's always been older than Kirk.
Anwar has a point. If Nero could get lost for 20+ years then the character of Kirk could have served on other ships before ending up on Enterprise. He could have been a survivor of the Farragut and warned Pike about the attack before Enterprise arrived and the movie could have continued on as it did.
As for this DS9/Voyager thread, it is incredible that after these two shows have been off the air for about 10 years and people are still arguing over which show is better and which fans are right and wrong. Can't we all just agree to disagree? Trek is big enough to include everyone, or as the Vulcans like to say IDIC.
What does it matter if the outcome was the same?
Anwar has a point. If Nero could get lost for 20+ years then the character of Kirk could have served on other ships before ending up on Enterprise. He could have been a survivor of the Farragut and warned Pike about the attack before Enterprise arrived and the movie could have continued on as it did.
We all know Kirk becomes a captain. Does it matter how it happens?
It does matter. If you are going to make anyone captain then what is the point of having a chain of command if someone can jump over several ranks to become captain.
Gene Roddenberry went to a lot of trouble to make Star Trek as "real" as possible for a sci-fi show and had the original Kirk serve on several ships gaining experience before he became captain of the Enterprise.
If your going to just make someone captain than you might as well change the name of the show to Star Wars where Han Solo went from Captain Solo to General Solo in Return of the Jedi.
Gene Roddenberry went to a lot of trouble to make Star Trek as "real" as possible for a sci-fi show and had the original Kirk serve on several ships gaining experience before he became captain of the Enterprise.
If your going to just make someone captain than you might as well change the name of the show to Star Wars where Han Solo went from Captain Solo to General Solo in Return of the Jedi.
Bringing up Han Solo becoming General tells me you're missing the point.
Did you notice Nog & Tom Paris got field commission promotions due to critical situations? In "Jedi" the small convoy you saw was all that was left of the Rebellion. Han Solo, like Nog, Paris and yes, this time Kirk all got promotions due to critical situations.
Take into account that during TOS, Starfleet had barely 100 ships to explore with. Kirk's Enterprise held what, 100 people? Realistically, how was Kirk supposed to advance with those odds? Just like it happened in both timelines, he would have to wait until a commanding officer was injured before he could move up.
His past doesn't matter, only the person he became does.
We actually already have, Timelord - and actually, we've decided that lots of people like both shows, so we don't all have to agree to disagree. The thread title is partly joking - you mustn't take it too seriously. I can understand why you haven't read the entire thread, but if you do, you'll find sweetness and light a-plenty. Why, we practically had a group hug a few posts back.
Oh bugg-...
Exodus the TOS Enterprise carried around 430 I believe..not 100.
So is this thread trying to resurrect the whole DS9/VOY thing from like 9 years ago? I don't think I was here then, but I heard that whole fourm thing was epic.
Anyway, as for my 2 cents, I try not to compare the two shows. DS9 was DS9, Voyager was Voyager. The only connection between the two of them was DS9 and Quark was featured as a launching pad in Caretaker. Other than that, they are two different shows, one of those being a station setting and the other going back to the Star Trek/TNG route. There are somethings I like DS9 more than Voyager, and there were some things Voyager did better than DS9. Personally, I like DS9 more, but I also like Voyager for what it was. I have both series on DVD and they were good buys, at the time.
Now though, I've been riding a bit of a Babylon 5 high and I think that's the next series I want to get on DVD. Saw all of it and hopefully I start the movies this week. Looking forward to those, and I guess Crusade just to see Lochley again.
Anyway, as for my 2 cents, I try not to compare the two shows. DS9 was DS9, Voyager was Voyager. The only connection between the two of them was DS9 and Quark was featured as a launching pad in Caretaker. Other than that, they are two different shows, one of those being a station setting and the other going back to the Star Trek/TNG route. There are somethings I like DS9 more than Voyager, and there were some things Voyager did better than DS9. Personally, I like DS9 more, but I also like Voyager for what it was. I have both series on DVD and they were good buys, at the time.
Now though, I've been riding a bit of a Babylon 5 high and I think that's the next series I want to get on DVD. Saw all of it and hopefully I start the movies this week. Looking forward to those, and I guess Crusade just to see Lochley again.
Thanks for the correction.
As a fervent Voyager hater and a die hard Niner, I think that there is a need to explain why it is that Voyager gets such harsh treatment from many DS9 fans.
1) Niners like change
Many DS9 fans were big TNG fans. We liked TNG for what it was. It was more or less a continuation of TOS with more luxury. Given that 20 years had passed since Trek had been on TV, it made perfect sense for a follow up series to duplicate some of the elements that made the original popular.
DS9 was a different animal. The creators of the show sat down and consciously looked at TNG and said "let's not do that again..let's do something new and different." That reasonates with alot of people. TV gets monotonous when its constantly duplicating the same formula over and over again.
I submit to you that many DS9 fans, like myself, were looking forward to Voyager when it was announced. The show we were told to expect was a show about two crews with opposing viwepoints having to learn to work together to survive a lonely trip across the galaxy. The additional key being the lonely trip. Early announcements made note of the struggles they would experience getting across hostile space with limited resources and no allies. That sounded GREAT. It was new and different for Trek. It was not just another show set on a ship. That unfortunately is not what we got.
2) DS9 fans liked the premise and hated that it was abandoned
This is without question the biggest complaint from DS9 fans. Voyager was not the show we were promised. Instead of the promising concept that was pitched to the audience...we got a retread of TNG. There was very little that was genuinely new about the series. The Maqui element was lost from the very begingin. The resources problem gradually disappeared. Instead of people struggling to get home, we got people talking a leisurely cruise across the galaxy (a cruise not all that dissimilar to that of the Enterprise). That increasingly pissed off ALOT of would be fans.
3) DS9 changed expectations of storytelling
Not only did Voyager repeat most of the premise of TNG, it consciously seemed to abandon the storytelling innovations introduced on DS9. While DS9 was giving viewers drawn out plots with intricate arcs, and ever expansive cast of characters, and stories that emphasized the ensemble feel of the show without anyone being ignored (including ALOT of fleshed out secondary characters, Voyager was giving us exactly what we had seen on TV for the previous 30 years. It was back to episodic stories where nothing changed, there were no consequences, few secondary characters, and most of the cast was snubbed in favor of an elite few.
In essence, Voyager was retrograde TV. Storytelling had simply become more complicated, yet Voyager was telling stories that would not have seemed out of place in 1987 or even 1966. Simply put DS9 fans expected more and actually got less.
In short, most of the hostility toward Voyager had to do with the show not living up to its potential. DS9 fans can and do accept some of DS9's shortcommings, but the overall opinion is that the show rarely missed a chance to push the envelope and definately lived up to much of its potential. That the creators of Voyager seemed to consciously dumb down the show. That made it less appealing overall. That the producers did not respond to criticisms and refused to take chances just annoyed the general fanbase.
That this attitude seemed to permeate that rest of late Trek only made things worse. The producers kept making the SAME mistakes over and over again. So the last few movies sucked, Voyager was a disappointment, and Enterprise from the very begining seemed determined to repeat Voyager's mistakes...went along way to angering the fans of DS9. Things only got worse as we heard what the producers on DS9 went though to get their show made as well as the behind the scenes actions that made the rest of trek an unwelcome place for much of the creative staff of DS9. That goes a long way toward explaining why Voyager gets such a hard time. It marked the begining of the sharp decline in quality that corrupted the rest of Trek until its ultimate demise.
1) Niners like change
Many DS9 fans were big TNG fans. We liked TNG for what it was. It was more or less a continuation of TOS with more luxury. Given that 20 years had passed since Trek had been on TV, it made perfect sense for a follow up series to duplicate some of the elements that made the original popular.
DS9 was a different animal. The creators of the show sat down and consciously looked at TNG and said "let's not do that again..let's do something new and different." That reasonates with alot of people. TV gets monotonous when its constantly duplicating the same formula over and over again.
I submit to you that many DS9 fans, like myself, were looking forward to Voyager when it was announced. The show we were told to expect was a show about two crews with opposing viwepoints having to learn to work together to survive a lonely trip across the galaxy. The additional key being the lonely trip. Early announcements made note of the struggles they would experience getting across hostile space with limited resources and no allies. That sounded GREAT. It was new and different for Trek. It was not just another show set on a ship. That unfortunately is not what we got.
2) DS9 fans liked the premise and hated that it was abandoned
This is without question the biggest complaint from DS9 fans. Voyager was not the show we were promised. Instead of the promising concept that was pitched to the audience...we got a retread of TNG. There was very little that was genuinely new about the series. The Maqui element was lost from the very begingin. The resources problem gradually disappeared. Instead of people struggling to get home, we got people talking a leisurely cruise across the galaxy (a cruise not all that dissimilar to that of the Enterprise). That increasingly pissed off ALOT of would be fans.
3) DS9 changed expectations of storytelling
Not only did Voyager repeat most of the premise of TNG, it consciously seemed to abandon the storytelling innovations introduced on DS9. While DS9 was giving viewers drawn out plots with intricate arcs, and ever expansive cast of characters, and stories that emphasized the ensemble feel of the show without anyone being ignored (including ALOT of fleshed out secondary characters, Voyager was giving us exactly what we had seen on TV for the previous 30 years. It was back to episodic stories where nothing changed, there were no consequences, few secondary characters, and most of the cast was snubbed in favor of an elite few.
In essence, Voyager was retrograde TV. Storytelling had simply become more complicated, yet Voyager was telling stories that would not have seemed out of place in 1987 or even 1966. Simply put DS9 fans expected more and actually got less.
In short, most of the hostility toward Voyager had to do with the show not living up to its potential. DS9 fans can and do accept some of DS9's shortcommings, but the overall opinion is that the show rarely missed a chance to push the envelope and definately lived up to much of its potential. That the creators of Voyager seemed to consciously dumb down the show. That made it less appealing overall. That the producers did not respond to criticisms and refused to take chances just annoyed the general fanbase.
That this attitude seemed to permeate that rest of late Trek only made things worse. The producers kept making the SAME mistakes over and over again. So the last few movies sucked, Voyager was a disappointment, and Enterprise from the very begining seemed determined to repeat Voyager's mistakes...went along way to angering the fans of DS9. Things only got worse as we heard what the producers on DS9 went though to get their show made as well as the behind the scenes actions that made the rest of trek an unwelcome place for much of the creative staff of DS9. That goes a long way toward explaining why Voyager gets such a hard time. It marked the begining of the sharp decline in quality that corrupted the rest of Trek until its ultimate demise.
Gotham, I was THERE when VOY was first airing and can tell you honestly that within the first 2 episodes VOY was already getting torn into for totally stupid reasons and the fandom was already out to blackmark anything VOY created on its own in terms of ideas and alien races. I don't know WHY they were so deadset against the show existence, but it remains that they were. And this was before the premise itself was slowly pushed to the back.
DS9 fans seemed to ignore that the basics of Trek technology (which were being used in DS9 as well) pretty much prevented the resource problems from getting too bad. As for the Maquis, it was a dumb idea for them to be the second crew to begin with. If they wanted real conflict they should have been Romulans or Cardassians.
Story Arcs would have turned off the common joe viewers VOY was going for, a growing cast wouldn't have made sense since the show was about a small ship and not an entire quadrant (plus it would've cost too much money). This is merely the double standard VOY gets: If they HAD created recurring characters for VOY in terms of the aliens encountered, the viewers would just complain that for a ship on the move it makes no sense to run into the same aliens and it would MONUMENTALLY stupid to run into the same INDIVIDUAL characters over and over again. It's just unfair double standard at work.
Niners wanted DS9 Part 2 and were PO'ed that VOY didn't ape them in every way. Of course if it HAD then they'd just complain that VOY wasn't being it's own show. Double Standard.
Seeing how hostile the fandom was towards VOY, it was a smarter choice NOT to listen to the detractors. Imagine if they had done so: If they had devoted several episodes to "redeem" a character like Neelix the VOY haters would simply not care about any development he went through and state how they hated that so much time was wasted on him. All the VOY writers' hard work at trying to improve his character, all that time and money, would have been for NOTHING. Nothing would have changed except that they wasted time and money on doing so.
And it's these days that the truth about what was going on behind the scenes for the VOY crew has come out and we see that UPN played a big role in what was disliked as well. Of course this is often ignored becaused the Niners like having Berman and Braga as their punching bags, much easier that way.
This post actually tried to address the issue honestly. It's wrong, but still, it tried. The generalization is true, there is an element of DS9 fandom that is virulently anti-Voyager and this Voyager hate is somehow fundamental to their love of DS9. Applying generalizations to individuals is a misuse of generalizations, though.
Since they obviously wanted stuff more like DS9, this is incorrect, at least as formulated. What they wanted was something that took DS9's politics even further.
The premise of the show is not found in press releases or internet posts, but in the pilot and the first regular episode.
If you actually watch those, most of the criticisms about abandoning the premise are exposed as crazy or grossly stupid.
Star Trek actually changed television scifi. Things like Hill Street Blues, ER, Cops and Survivor changed television storytelling. Putting DS9 above things like that shows the kind of lack of critical judgment required for the hard core Niner faith.
Insofar as a special DS9 hate for Voyager goes, this is insane because Star Trek the series was the only Trek series that wasn't in some degree retrograde.
In other words, DS9 fans took that insane Moore rant as gospel truth. There are very few "criticisms" of Voyager that don't mindlessly copy that idiotic tract, whether first hand or twelfth hand.
No one hates something for what it isn't, they hate it for what it is. Objectively, DS9, as the first Berman series suffered the most from Berman's lack of experience. DS9 didn't live up to its potential either. Most television shows don't. If a television show has a limited potential (Stargate comes to mind instantly) and lives up to it, people don't give it a shred of credit. So this just isn't true. It's just a self flattering (basically implying "I" have higher standards than you cretins,) excuse.
Since they obviously wanted stuff more like DS9, this is incorrect, at least as formulated. What they wanted was something that took DS9's politics even further.
The premise of the show is not found in press releases or internet posts, but in the pilot and the first regular episode.
If you actually watch those, most of the criticisms about abandoning the premise are exposed as crazy or grossly stupid.
Star Trek actually changed television scifi. Things like Hill Street Blues, ER, Cops and Survivor changed television storytelling. Putting DS9 above things like that shows the kind of lack of critical judgment required for the hard core Niner faith.
Insofar as a special DS9 hate for Voyager goes, this is insane because Star Trek the series was the only Trek series that wasn't in some degree retrograde.
In other words, DS9 fans took that insane Moore rant as gospel truth. There are very few "criticisms" of Voyager that don't mindlessly copy that idiotic tract, whether first hand or twelfth hand.
No one hates something for what it isn't, they hate it for what it is. Objectively, DS9, as the first Berman series suffered the most from Berman's lack of experience. DS9 didn't live up to its potential either. Most television shows don't. If a television show has a limited potential (Stargate comes to mind instantly) and lives up to it, people don't give it a shred of credit. So this just isn't true. It's just a self flattering (basically implying "I" have higher standards than you cretins,) excuse.
It's fun when someone posts something that is a total and blatant contradiction to all known reality.
Of course some things are hated for what they aren't, just as some things are hated for what they are. But this is just a semantic quibble. If you can't envision something being "something else" (what it is not), how can you have any opinion of it at all, to hate it or love it?
None of them do, since anyone with imagination can envision something better than any TV show can ever pull off. DS9 set its standards higher than VOY and the fact that it lived up to them to any degree makes it better than VOY, which set its standards to be nothing much more than old TNG scripts, dusted off and with the proper names changed.
Nor should they. The first job of a TV show is to have something they are striving to achieve beyond the same old shit.
Wow, I did not know it was possible for someone to be both arrogant and miss the point all at the same time. To suggest that something is WRONG is to imply that you have some special insight that others lack. Given that you are clearly not anti-Voyager, your assertion is dubious at best.
Since they obviously wanted stuff more like DS9, this is incorrect, at least as formulated. What they wanted was something that took DS9's politics even further.
[/QUOTE]
This is further proof that you missed the point and fundamentally don't understand the criticism.
So you're really trying to argue that the folks that made and promoted the show did a bait and switch. They sold one sort of show to the fans and viewers and then actually produced something else entirely. That would tend to explain the drop in viewers
Apparently a lack critical analysis is missing from quite a few Voyager fans. Since once more you missed the point. DS9 changed Star Trek, in that it showed that this franchise was perfectly capable of doing more complex storytelling and character development that had ever previously been shown in the franchise. Once fans experience a higher level of quality they are going to demand higher quality from that point forward. experiencing premium Trek only to go back to McTrek soured a lot of people.
Given that DS9 managed to break the mold established by TOS and solidified by TNG, the show this argument does not hold much water. That every other series following DS9 went back to the exact same format and style of storytelling is at the very heart of the criticism of Voyager (and Enterprise). Please see point number one. DS9 fans wanted something new not a retread of the same ground already covered by two previous programs.
That you think that complaints were limited to Moore shows that you don't know what you are talking about. There is a reason that very few of the DS9 staff moved over to Voyager once DS9 ended. Not only that, but Ira Behr has gone on reccord about some of the arguments that he got into with Berman over content.
[/QUOTE]
Of course its possible to dislike something for what it is not. Voyager was just warmed over TNG. If they were going to make another TNG, then it would have made much more sense to keep TNG on the air. After all it went out on a high note.
I would argue that Voyager suffered precisely BECAUSE of Berman's experience. Once Berman moved over to Voyager, the folks on DS9, took their concepts and ran with. They pushed the envelope of what could or had been told in the Trek universe. Its should be hardly surprising that the more direct involvement that Berman had on a show, the more it suffered creatively.
Similar threads
