Been hearing of bias against DS9 by Trek developers, true?

[klingonhybrid]

I have been hearing that most developers, producers, and not to mention fans, have mostly shunned DS9...Is this true?

I am a big fan of DS9 and was just wondering... I liked it because It was the only series that had storylines which made you literally FEAR for the survival of the characters, since we had this sense of impending doom from the diminion...and these crazy evil-coalitions with the jem-hadar and breen.....and cardassians which make awesome characters in any trek franchise...

DS9 Forever!!!!!!!

 

[Infern0]

As far as I know, among core fan's it is one of the most popular Trek series, I'm not sure about Bias against it from a production stanpoint however

 

[{ Emilia }]

It had 7 seasons despite rather crappy ratings. That's more than Enterprise got.

I don't think DS9 fans or producers can complain, really. They took some risks and dared some stuff that no other Trek series dared.

 

[Thestral]

On the one hand, you might could say the DS9 was given less attention or time from the higher-ups at Paramount who were more focused on Voyager.

On the other hand, you might could say that because DS9 got less attention, it was able to get away with and do some things it might not've with a tighter rein.

 

[Shatnertage]

It seems to have had a pretty good run...and a mention in Swingers. What more could you ask for?

 

[CoveTom]

What you've heard probably comes from the fact that it is en vogue to blame former Trek executive producer Rick Berman for anything that has ever gone wrong with Star Trek and to give him no credit anything that has gone right.

Because a significant number of fans believe that Deep Space Nine has some of the best writing in all of Star Trek, they've had to invent ways to avoid giving credit to Mr. Berman. The most popular method is to claim that he was only interested in Voyager and basically ignored Deep Space Nine and it was the fact that the other producers, such as Ira Steven Behr and Ronald D. Moore, were left alone that made it good.

So everything good that happened during TNG and DS9? That was Michael Piller, Ira Steven Behr, Ronald D. Moore, etc., of course. Everything bad that happened during Voyager and Enterprise? Berman, all the way.

 

[zar]

On the one hand, you might could say the DS9 was given less attention or time from the higher-ups at Paramount who were more focused on Voyager.

On the other hand, you might could say that because DS9 got less attention, it was able to get away with and do some things it might not've with a tighter rein.

http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=20001120

Never heard this before. I learned something new today.

 

[DeepSpaceWine]

I think this is the DS9 fan's own perceptions starting to feed upon themselves into a sort of groupthink, alleging the favoritism VOY saw vs. DS9 and turning it into the producers having a grudge against DS9. Part of their mentality is they have to play the victim even though DS9 was the 2nd highest rated show across its run of the 80s-00s four. Many of their gripes are contrary to the facts (ratings overall, Ferengi episodes getting lower ratings, etc, the war episodes reinvigorating interest in a waning series [ratings show the same decline those seasons as all syndicated shows across the board]) or fail to take into consideration the changing syndication market/television landscape over the '90s. I've debunked a number of these perceptions in the thread here about DS9's ratings.


The short rundown:
- DS9 had higher ratings than Voyager across its entire run except for part of Winter/Spring 1995 and the rare episode here or there.
- DS9 had great ratings for syndication. It was consistently the top, 2nd, or 3rd highest rated first-run syndicated show (that wasn't a game show, judge show, dating show- Wheel of Fortune, Jeopardy, Judge Judy were always rated higher).
- VOY got more advertising than DS9 because VOY was on a network and its production company was part-owner of that network (the P in UPN). DS9 was in first-run syndication and with the rise of UPN & WB gobbling up so many independent stations, there was less time for DS9, Hercules, Xena, Earth Final Conflict, Baywatch, and other shows to be advertised on weeknight primetime, and so on.

 

[Trek Survivor]

OP - um, no. The exact opposite has happened. People have raised it to godhood, so it's now gone from under-rated to way over-rated.

 

[flemm]

For whatever reason, there seems to be a lot of enduring controversy and misinformation (or at least questionable interpretation) surrounding this issue. I will attempt to summarize some of the key points as I understand them.

First, DS9 was not a poorly rated show. It was simply a ratings disappointment compared to TNG, as were all the other TNG-era Trek shows. However, compared to its peers, such as Voyager and B5, its ratings were good.

Whether or not it was actually a more popular show than Voyager is open to debate, due to the difference in how the shows were aired, but anyway DS9 was approximately as popular or a bit more popular.

There was, however, a clear difference in how the two shows were promoted. DS9 was never intended to be the franchise standard-bearer on television in the wake of TNG: that was supposed to be Voyager, which was also the flagship show for the newly created studio network, UPN. Thus, Voyager was more heavily promoted than its syndicated counterpart. This, along with a few related incidents (such as Sisko and DS9 not being featured alongside the other shows and Captains in the marketing for ENT), has certainly contributed to the lingering resentment that is sometimes voiced by fans of DS9 toward the studio.

However, in my personal view, all fans of DS9 should be grateful for the relative neglect of DS9 on the part of the studio, as this is what allowed the DS9 creators to have more freedom to experiment. Doubtless they were a creative bunch in any event, but they also had to deal with relatively little interference on the part of the studio. Had the show been perceived as the standard-bearer of the franchise, a lot of that creativity would have undoubtedly been surpressed, and the show would have ended up being a lot more sterile and formulaic, i.e. more like Voyager and ENT.

On the subject of Rick Berman, while I don't think there is much to complain about regarding his involvement in DS9, I don't think there's much reason to praise him for it either, since he did very little writing for the show (perhaps none at all?) following the pilot, which he co-wrote with Michael Piller. Piller and then Ira Steven Behr were the showrunners. Prominent writers included Piller, Robert Hewitt Wolfe, Peter Allen Fields, Behr, Rene Echevarria and Ronald Moore. Berman is sometimes credited for pushing the idea of the Dominion to give the Gamma Quadrant an identity, but beyond that he doesn't seem to have been deeply involved with the show creatively.

Finally, as others have mentioned, DS9 is an extremely popular show among fans, and increasingly so. Deservedly imo, but regardless, its reputation has certainly not diminished among fans since it went off the air.

 

[TheGodBen]

OP - um, no. The exact opposite has happened. People have raised it to godhood, so it's now gone from under-rated to way over-rated.

How could anyone possibly over-rate the greatest cultural achievement of humankind?

 

[Skywalker]

OP - um, no. The exact opposite has happened. People have raised it to godhood, so it's now gone from under-rated to way over-rated.

How could anyone possibly over-rate the greatest cultural achievement of humankind?

Wait, when did we start talking about Jersey Shore?

 

[Ensign_Redshirt]

OP - um, no. The exact opposite has happened. People have raised it to godhood, so it's now gone from under-rated to way over-rated.

Well, there must be some sort of compensation...

 

[zar]

OP - um, no. The exact opposite has happened. People have raised it to godhood, so it's now gone from under-rated to way over-rated.

I don't think TrekBBS posters are a representative sample.

 

[DeepSpaceWine]

First, DS9 was not a poorly rated show. It was simply a ratings disappointment compared to TNG, as were all the other TNG-era Trek shows. However, compared to its peers, such as Voyager and B5, its ratings were good.

As I noted, DS9 was one of the top first-run shows in syndication in the '90s. One could literally not get better ratings after TNG. TNG was an anomaly. It had the best ratings in syndication since Sea Hunt over 25 years earlier. It wasn't a disappointment. In the late '90s, its ratings really went down, but so did Xena & Hercules & Baywatch. The reason seemed to be cable and a large number of syndicated shows all competing for the same choice timeslots on Saturdays, with the rest being exiled to overnight Saturday into Sunday. Maybe also people being more prone to surf the internet in the off-times syndicated shows were airing in the late '90s too.

Yes, its ratings were good compared to VOY & B5. Syndication overall was below the network in ratings significantly. Syndie shows appealed to niche demographics and people seeking an alternative to conventional programming (first-run dramas; several sitcoms were in syndication in the '80s though). UPN & WB got pretty weak ratings too (comparable to syndication). PTEN was a joke. JMS liked to say how much his show was growing when DS9's ratings were falling, but B5 never came close to DS9's ratings. Good show, but its ratings were as low as Voyager's later in its run.

Whether or not it was actually a more popular show than Voyager is open to debate, due to the difference in how the shows were aired, but anyway DS9 was approximately as popular or a bit more popular.

Well, if ratings are an assessment of how many people follow a show, then DS9 was more popular than Voyager. DS9 has a far greater presence online because it fans were more internet savvy/forum chatty than other Trek shows (proportionally). DS9 got better ratings in off-times than VOY got in primetime. That's to DS9's credit, though DS9 had weaker competition usually. Voyager was up against Dawson's Creek, West Wing, Drew Carey Show, Party of Five if I remember correctly. Of course, Voyager gets more flak than any Star Trek except Enterprise. DS9 fans hate it for many reasons, mostly emotional reasons, a fair number of TNG fans hate it (the TNG fanbase didn't automatically migrate to Voyager. The ratings of TNG vs. VOY should prove that), and then there's the dark/gritty crowd that whined and moaned all through the run that the ship was too sparkly and shiny. They wanted more interpersonal conflict, more drama, more damage. They got what they wanted (Battlestar Galactica) but still whine about Voyager.

 

[CoveTom]

Re: Been hearing of bias against DThS9 by Trek developers, true?

DS9 was never intended to be the franchise standard-bearer on television in the wake of TNG: that was supposed to be Voyager, which was also the flagship show for the newly created studio network, UPN.

Not entirely accurate. When DS9 was conceived, it was because the studio -- more specifically, Brandon Tartikoff -- wanted to capitalize on TNG's popularity by moving it to the big screen. The plan that was originally hatched was that DS9 would be introduced, would run concurrently with TNG for a period of time, and then would assume the mantle of the current Star Trek series, while TNG went on to the movies. The original plan was to have one series running and then the movie series, just as had been done for much of TNG's run.

But two things happened to change that. First, Paramount saw how both TNG and DS9 maintained strong ratings despite airing simultaneously. Thus, they determined that the market was there to support two Trek shows at the same time. Second, the decision was made to start up the UPN network. When UPN was in development, TNG was a ratings powerhouse with ratings in syndication that could rival many network shows, and DS9, though not getting the same ratings as TNG, was still very strong. So it was thought that heading up UPN with a Trek series was pretty much a guaranteed success.

Rick Berman, incidentally, fought against the idea of going straight from TNG into Voyager. He wanted DS9 to be given the reins and not to rush into another new series for fear of going to the well one too many times and saturating the market. But Paramount made it clear they were going to do another Trek series with or without him, so he reluctantly agreed to do it.

On the subject of Rick Berman, while I don't think there is much to complain about regarding his involvement in DS9, I don't think there's much reason to praise him for it either, since he did very little writing for the show (perhaps none at all?) following the pilot, which he co-wrote with Michael Piller. Piller and then Ira Steven Behr were the showrunners. Prominent writers included Piller, Robert Hewitt Wolfe, Peter Allen Fields, Behr, Rene Echevarria and Ronald Moore. Berman is sometimes credited for pushing the idea of the Dominion to give the Gamma Quadrant an identity, but beyond that he doesn't seem to have been deeply involved with the show creatively.

Myth. Berman was not a prolific writer for ANY Trek series until Enterprise. That doesn't mean he wasn't deeply involved creatively. He was just as creatively involved in DS9 as he was TNG, and only slightly less so than he was in Voyager.[/QUOTE]

 

[Jetboogieman]

Personally I like every Star Trek except Enterprise.

Star Trek DS9 did divide a few fans because it went a little darker then other Star Treks and touched on alot more contraversial things.

It also showed quite a bit of tension within the federation and the potential some officers would go to "protect it".

DS9 paradise lost and the introduction of Section 31 were good examples of this.

For me personally, I actually liked it, and found it consistent with the events that were unfolding during the show.

When a democracy is faced with the threat of annhilation, sinister forces often wish to control it to "protect it" and end up destroying it in the process.

With the threat of the Borg, and then later on the Dominion, there would naturally be tension within the military ranks.

However I find DS9 to be my favourite Star trek and one of the most underated shows perhaps in TV history, its dark, sometimes funny, thoughtful, so many things I can't even list, a great show and in my books, the best of the Treks.

 

[toughlittleship]

I think Wrath of Khan and The Undiscovered Country were pretty dark as well. I think DS9 was the heir of those films much more than TNG was.

 

[DeepSpaceWine]

There's all that talk about Star Trek oversaturation, but it seemed like the Star Treks had very polarized fanbases. There were many TNG viewers who would not watch over Star Treks (thus why its ratings were so much higher- high casual/non-fan appeal), DS9 fans vs. VOY fans. Each subsequent post-TNG Star Trek turned off some of the fanbase (even TNG had its TOS-only haters). Then again, there were many people (myself included) who happily caught both the DS9 & VOY episodes every week. Though both Star Trek, they were 2 different shows. Did Law & Order airing 3 series at the same time hurt it? Did CSI airing 3 series at the same time hurt it?

People got tired of the tired out of its time writing (Borg, Ferengi, so much technology, talk of Q) and Temporal Cold War go nowhere Enterprise and Nemesis with all its horrid flaws (a bad xerox of Wrath of Khan, or the TNG cast channeling the fake Duke boys (Coy & Vance) as they act out Wrath of Khan). That's when franchise fatigue set in, yet those who watched the Xindi arc loved it, which is why the ratings were remarkably stable in Season 3 (though that 2 month spring hiatus did lower the ratings for the final set). The ratings decline in DS9 & VOY affected Hercules, Xena, Baywatch, every other syndicated show, and many non-syndicated shows. I'd like to hear how Star Trek oversaturation hurt the ratings of Baywatch & Hercules.


Part of not wanting 2 Star Trek shows at the same time is one has to divide the staff of the previous existing show and hire a bunch of new staff who don't have the existing Star Trek experience. The irony of wanting DS9 to stand on its own is, despite the popular perception of DS9 as the forgotten middle child, it clearly had more viewers on a weekly basis than VOY. And I think, once Paramount was launching a network, there was going to be a Star Trek show on it as the flagship no matter if it was 1995, 1993, or 1998.

I think franchise fatigue (in tv) is more felt inside the production studio than in the living room, with examples of how strong CSI & Law & Order were all those seasons showing that. Likewise with how Murder She Wrote was a ratings juggernaut for year after year after year... after year despite having the same demographics as Denny's early bird specials (except for those 2 seasons when Angela Lansbury was literally phoning it in). Studios feel they have to constantly be changing, trying something new. If they're on the same thing too long, they feel stir crazy, they assume people must be getting bored with it. Shows that have very high longevity (Simpsons, Murder She Wrote, Gunsmoke & Bonanza, Law & Order, CSI, Stargate) basically show people can like the same show even if it seems like its been on forever.

 

[Nightdiamond]

For some reason, DS9 just never became mainstream like the others.

I always mention this when this topic comes up, but I remember the difference between DS9's series finale, and Voyager's.

Voyager's was given star treatment- not only was it promoted, but there was a feature news segment with interviews after the finale with some of the cast and a "look back" at the series.

Ironically, one of the cast members said he didn't like how it ended during the interview.

DS9's on the other hand, aired on a Saturday as a two hour feature. After it aired, that was it, no special interviews or looks back at the show.

Even now, Enterprise gets regular rotation in reruns on SY FY-I haven't seen DS9 in years now.

Maybe the structure of DS9 just doesn't make it as mainstream friendly as the other shows.