True. It's above it.
In Depth DS9 Review
- Thread starter USS Excelsior
- Start date
True. It's above it.
Matter of opinion. But I think TOS is a dated show that comes across as awfully silly. You give me the ten bst TOS episodes and I'll give you my ten best DS9 and I think I have a great argument.
The reviewer raises some interesting points.
Firstly, I disagree about season 7 being worse than all of Voyager's seasons combined. The quality certainly didn't dip that low, though the season had a couple of disappointing/forgettable episodes. Season 2 didn't just have bad Next Generation episodes, it was the season where DS9 established it's own identity.
Anyway, what irked me the most was that the claim that DS9 was Star Trek in name only. My counter-arguement would be to define what Star Trek is. If a new series was produced that resembled DS9, would that be referred to as Star Trek in name only, or an accepted part of the franchise because of the DS9 similarities? Star Trek is whatever gets produced on screen. DS9 still has those life lesson-type stories, it just takes a different approach.
I hope any new Star Trek series breaks the formula.
Firstly, I disagree about season 7 being worse than all of Voyager's seasons combined. The quality certainly didn't dip that low, though the season had a couple of disappointing/forgettable episodes. Season 2 didn't just have bad Next Generation episodes, it was the season where DS9 established it's own identity.
Anyway, what irked me the most was that the claim that DS9 was Star Trek in name only. My counter-arguement would be to define what Star Trek is. If a new series was produced that resembled DS9, would that be referred to as Star Trek in name only, or an accepted part of the franchise because of the DS9 similarities? Star Trek is whatever gets produced on screen. DS9 still has those life lesson-type stories, it just takes a different approach.
I hope any new Star Trek series breaks the formula.
Oh, look. Little Johnny can place pictures in his posts. Isn't that just so cute?
You actually expect me to dignify your absurdity with, what? I'll tell you what, since you were the one who brought TOS into this, and started wonking on how unbiased people would put DS9 right up there with (snicker) TOS, then go look around the intraweb and find some "greatest sci-fi of all time" lists and when you find one that has DS9 anywhere near TOS, come back and we'll talk. Because you're living in a fantasy world if you think DS9 is of equal quality. In fact, go out in the streets and walk up to people and say, "Mr. Spock" and then say "Kira" and see how many people nod in understanding when you say the first, and how many give you a blank look when you say the second. Yeah, there's a reason for that. Junior.
Didn't he do just that? TOS defines Star Trek. Because it's the one actually called "Star Trek." It's not actually called Star Trek: The Original Series. Look at the intro and you'll see it just says, "Star Trek." TOS is Star Trek. TOS defines what Star Trek is, because Star Trek is Star Trek.
Oh, look. Little Johnny can place pictures in his posts. Isn't that just so cute?
You actually expect me to dignify your absurdity with, what? I'll tell you what, since you were the one who brought TOS into this, and started wonking on how unbiased people would put DS9 right up there with (snicker) TOS, then go look around the intraweb and find some "greatest sci-fi of all time" lists and when you find one that has DS9 anywhere near TOS, come back and we'll talk. Because you're living in a fantasy world if you think DS9 is of equal quality. In fact, go out in the streets and walk up to people and say, "Mr. Spock" and then say "Kira" and see how many people nod in understanding when you say the first, and how many give you a blank look when you say the second. Yeah, there's a reason for that. Junior.
First and foremost, the argument of which series is best is purely a subjective one. Personally, I like both series, but I will agree that while Deep Space Nine is an awesome show, and in some ways has great things going for it, its not quite at the level of Star Trek. However, having said that, you can base the quality of a show purely on the level of pop culture status it has received. You're right. No one on the street will know Kira as compared to Spock. But that has nothing to do with the quality of the show.
Oh, look. Little Johnny can place pictures in his posts. Isn't that just so cute?
You actually expect me to dignify your absurdity with, what? I'll tell you what, since you were the one who brought TOS into this, and started wonking on how unbiased people would put DS9 right up there with (snicker) TOS, then go look around the intraweb and find some "greatest sci-fi of all time" lists and when you find one that has DS9 anywhere near TOS, come back and we'll talk. Because you're living in a fantasy world if you think DS9 is of equal quality. In fact, go out in the streets and walk up to people and say, "Mr. Spock" and then say "Kira" and see how many people nod in understanding when you say the first, and how many give you a blank look when you say the second. Yeah, there's a reason for that. Junior.
Oh, goody. You can do more than post pictures and come up with short 3rd grade level responses.
There is nothing absurd about my argument. And frankly I don't need the popular opinion of society to justify my view. That's a handicap that an intellectually challenged individual like yourself falls back on. Look, I can go up to anyone on the street and say "Tony Soprano" and then say "Jimmy McNulty". The vast majority of the people will know the first name (The Sopranos) while virtually no one will know the second (The Wire). But does that mean that The Wire is an inferior show? No. Its arguably a better show than The Sopranos. It isn't a cultural icon, it doesn't have any Emmy wins, it never got nearly as good the ratings, but to many folks who watched both shows regularly The Wire is the better series.
The problem with some folks like yourself is that you equate ratings, box ofice and popularity with quality. Nonsense. Bad art whether it be books, music, TV shows, movies, etc, can and do win the popularity contest from time to time. Not saying TOS was bad. But I also don't consider it (just my opinion) the best Trek despite how universally beloved it is. Popularity is not the final determination of its superiority to other, less popular and less well known shows (like DS9). That's just crap for people lto hide behind when they can't come up with a better argument. Are there other arguments, more legitimate ones, to be made in favor of TOS being better than Deep Space Nine? Absolutely, I'm sure there's plenty.
Oh, wow. Spock is more popular than Kira. Thanks for informing me of that. And Simon Cowell is more well known than Charlie Rose, but I still find American Idol to be no more than garabge. And Dan Brown's Robert Langdon character from his The Da Vinci Code novel is more well known amongst readers than characters from little-known but highly acclaimed novels that came out this past decade. By your logic that would be proof that "The Da Vinci Code" is a superior work of art.
Actually it means that the book appealed more to the mainstream, connected better with the masses, was more accessible as a story, was better promoted by its publisher, etc. There could be dozens of reasons. But being the best book written in this decade isn't one of them. If you could read more carefully you would have seen in my initial post all the factors that possibly have led to TOS having an advantage over almost all modern sci fi shows. You may not agree with those factors but my argument is at least sound and reasonable, not reactionary.Stephen King when discussing BSG in Entertainment Weekly a year or so ago basically called Star Trek a joke in comparison. Now why I could understand some of his view points I still had to disagree and had my own reasons why TOS and most of the Trek shows were great and in some respects better in their own right. But you can bet that not once did I resort to a small-minded response about Trek having better ratings or Kirk being more well known than Adama. I can do better than that. Of course I won't hold it against BSG that it came along at a time in which the audience for all shows is far more splintere either. Instead I can argue for Trek's quality without having to resort to making it all about a popularity contest. Try that sometime.
Perhaps I should have taken King's word on the matter as final. After all he is a hugely successful writer who is known worldwide. He certainly has better name recognition than even Gene Roddenberry and probably more respect from the masses too. His opinion must mean something, more than mine or any other Trek fan. But of course the answer is that's not the case, he just has the larger platform to speak from. Just as TOS fans and TNG fans think the popularity of their shows mean that fans of DS9 don't have the right to assert that DS9 is at that level of those previous Trek series. I've been dealing with those type of folks forever the past ten years and you know they are still no more right now than they are then. As pointed out earlier everything is subjective. If a fan believes wholeheartedly that Roddenberry's Andromeda was better than X-Files, well, what can you do? The idea is insulting to me but just because its my opinion doesn't make it word of law. That being said I don't think I was as crazy when I favorably compared DS9's quality to the quality of TOS. DS9 was a great show across the board. The fact that it has a fraction of TOS' audience does not diminish its excellence.
And since you brought it up...critics who have ACTUALLY watched DS9 have spoken very highly of it, at times saying its the best Trek or at the very least the best of modern Trek. Now these critics may not be well known as Tom Shales but they did write for newspapers, or sci fi magazines, or sci fi websites or DVD review sites. They all can be respected for their opinions even if one disagrees with them. If you do some searching on the net you can find some of their comments. But the key with them is that they did view the entire run of the show. I tend to notice that the TV critics who are most dismissive of DS9 appear to have seen only a handful of episodes or gave up on it early on. I also tend to find that many of them are fools who can't imagine liking a Trek show without Kirk and Spock or Picard and Data. That's their loss.
Last edited:
No, it isn't Star Trek, it is Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. You asked for a definition of Star Trek, not a definition of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. That definition was given in that youtube video right at the beginning. It is defined by the formula used in the series called Star Trek.
First, I'm going to assume that when you said "can base" you meant "can't base" otherwise, that doesn't make any sense. My response is below.
You're both wrong. I'm not arguing popularity for popularity's sake. Popularity is a measure of how received something is in its time. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about how something is received beyond its time. Sure, Simon what's-his-face is a name people will know right now simply because his television show is occuring right now, and it's a product of it's time. Come back in 50 years and see how many people know who he is. Because they won't. The test of time is excellent for determination of what has superior quality of enduring due to it being, well, as objectively "good" as one can get in these matters. Yes, it's true, DS9 is awesome. I love it. But it is simply not on the level of Star Trek, and time will (and already has) show this to be true. It isn't a matter of "look at how many people know it" it is a matter of "look at how many people still know it after 50 years." There is a reason for the ongoing endurance of Star Trek, and it isn't just "people like it" popularity. It is because it was not a product of its time (as contrasted to the other series) and it has continued to endure despite that fact because of superior quality. If you can't see the difference, bummer for you.
Last edited:
Bummer indeed.
There was one crucial thing that I thought TOS had legitimately going for itself in this argument and you hit it on the head. Longevity. Its hard to argue against anything that endures and TOS has endured for decades. Other shows from its era have almost been forgotten by the public but TOs has stuck with us. And indeed that alone is a strong argument for its superiority.
But ultimately I don't think it is the most true measurement of the quality of a show (my reason why I will get back to it in a moment). Its more of a measurement of the bond/an attachment an audience has with a show. And how that bond is formed and the reasons why some shows have a stronger bond than others are not as simple as folks may want to believe.
Let me get back to the longevity factor. My stance on not thinking as highly of it is because before longevity comes discovery. The mainstream audience has to discover a show before it can stick with them for decades. TOS was cancelled after its third season. Today a show lasting on network TV for three years is FAR more impressive than it was back in the 60s. Don't get me wrong. Its not as if a three year run was anything to sneeze at back then either. However during that time Television was still in its infancy (or early childhood). Shows stayed on the air longer because networks were more patient. There was less competition too which meant even some of the least watched shows in the 60s would (going by numbers) be dominant shows by modern standards. We're talking three networks here. We're talking about not all of the networks having a three hour schedule of original programming each night of the week. It was a totally different TV environment than what we experience now.
Despite its premature yanking from the air TOS had the fortune of coming about at the right time. And there is something to be said for that. Not too long after it was cancelled by NBC the world was transformed with the walk on the moon. Suddenly the "silly" science fiction shows and movies of recent years didn't look that unbelievable after all. Over night all things seemed possible. And as a result there was a thirst, especially amongst the young, for all things dealing with space exploration. And what better way to satisfy that hunger than through popular entertainment which could send humans to all sorts of distant worlds more faster and more frequently than NASA. And what show best delivered such storytelling? Well, it just happened to be a recently cancelled show named "Star Trek." And it was perfect. It was in bright, full color not black and white like the Twilight Zone. It had special effects and a set design superior than any science fiction show that came before it. It was sexy and filled with good-looking charismatic individuals, always a plus for young (especially teen) audiences. And for the males who tended to always be the dominant viewers/readers of sci-fi, it had numerous hot looking women walking around in mini-skirts and boots. Even more importantly it had a noticably multi-racial cast in a time in which that was still rare. And yet that was an era that race played a role in the major winds of political change that was blowing through the nation. As a result TOS presented a view of humanity that was as progressive as the machinery and technology it presented on the screen. That made it stabd out even more.
When the show started to be rebroadcast during the afternoon on stations and later on the weekdays and weekends of syndicated TV stations you got the "discovery" of the series by the fanbase that would be most important for its growth over the next 20 years. For ten plus years, all the way into the early 80s, TOS filled a need for inexpensive programming. A show that was accessible and rewatchable in part because a viewer tuning in DID NOT need to see a previous episode or a previous season to understand what was playing out before him/her. During this time it had a chance to grow because it came during an era in which the battle for the viewers' attention was still limited in terms of choices.
I brought this up before in a previous post and now I'll put it in a different way. Lets say for the purpose of this post that "Babylon 5" is the Star Trek of this modern era. If a father discovered TOS in the late 70s or early 80s maybe his son would do the same now with Babylon 5. But there are more selections now. The son wil not come hom to a TV landscape in which there are four to five channels with one of them playing Babylon 5. No, there are at least twice as many channels now on broadcast/free TV and hundreds of channels overall when you consider cable. If B5 was on a current network the son may never stumble across it because it would be like stumbling across a needle in a haystack.
And then there's the VCR/DVD factor. Why give a show like B5 a chance when you can rewatch your favorite shows, movies or sporting events again anytime you want? This is a time in which the viewer can determine the agenda of his TV viewing experience by pulling out a video cassette or a DVD. In fact the son could indeed discover series from the past but unfortunately none turn out to be B5 because he has hundreds of former shows to choose from on DVD. If he's in to sci-fi he could check out BSG or Lost or Stargate Atlantis because there is more buzz about those current shows. Hell, the son may get DVDs of his dad's fave (TOS) and realize why that show made such a big impression on his father. Tell me, did TOS have to go up against anything like this when it was being shown in reruns for the first time?
It does not stop there. There are video games which are getting more spohisticated every day. These video games can now deliver a form of entertainmnet to your home like nothing ever before and they have taken hold of millions of peoples' imaginations. Without question they have also eaten into the time people once reserved for TV viewing. I wonder how many Trek fans of the 70s and 80s, people who often were attracted to technology and inovation, would have never truly discovered Trek or invested enough time in viewing to fall in love with the show, if the sophisticated (and story-telling) video games of our modern era were around back then.
Of course there is the internet. The son again could turn to lurking an hour on two on the web instead of switching through hundreds of cable channels and coming across B5. And there's the devices like Ipods which would allow the son to block out the rest of the world for an hour at a time, an hour that once could have been used to watch a show like Babylon 5. But the son no longer needs TV to be entertained like his counterparts 30 years ago. He could downlaod a movie and watch it on his Ipod if that's what he wants. The competition for his attention is fierce. Period. And a show like B5 is less likely to be discovered by new fans when there is so much out there to be entertained by, so many other things to be discovered.
The landscape has changed, the situation is different. back in 1999 when DS9 was going off the air there were many Niners predicting that DS9 would be discovered by the masses like the Original Trek and become a household name. I was a champion of DS9's quality back then as well and felt it stood above the other Trek series. And yet I told people, on these very same boards, that it was unlikley for history to repeat itself with DS9 in a manner similiar to TOS. And I thought so because of the very same reason I just wrote about above. Too much competion these days for that to happen again (by the way to all the Firefly fans who think its happening with their show...stop deluding yourselves too). Hell, there is too much splintering of the Trek fanbase itself for something like that to occur again. Most TOS, TNG and VOY fans who didn't care for DS9 or never gave it a chance are still more prone to rewatch their fave Trek series rather than investing time in DS9 now.
Let me try this example. In music the great popular artists who sell ten million or more albums don't really exist anymore. Yes, much of it is because of illegal downloads but its also because the way we consume music is different. We can get music fixes without having to buy a record or a CD. We can get almost all we want online and we don't have music video channels pushing the current product (they are more interested in reality shows). So the record sales of the past are safe from being broken anytime soon. New stars are not coming around as often. But does that mean there aren't respected artists around today who are not creating as good if not better quality work than The Who or the Bee Gees or Kool and the Gang? Is there work less artistic or less impressive because at this current state the system isn't set up for them to be discovered by the masses and therfore have longevity? Hard to have that longevity when you are not being discovered by enough people.
TOS virtually had the TV sci-fi playground to itself for two decades (no offense to Space 1999, Battlestar Galactica, Buck Rogers, the 6 Million Dollar Man, etc). It had a chance to grow its audience and be discovered. Obviously it could not keep that audience if it was not a good show, a well written show. It was able to take advantage of its fortunate situation because it was a high quality show (at least for two of its three seasons). I'm not trying to take anything away from it. It was a trailblazer and not only for the Trek series. But in terms of sophistication, bold and intelligent writing and true character growth and development I think it falls short next to modern shows like DS9, B5, Lost, BSG (though it kicks the butts of any Stargate show on that front IMO). I think its inferior to TNG too in those areas. But, hey, we live in a time in which TV shows are more sophisticated and character oriented than they were in previious eras. I would hope that the more moden shows are at least being written better than they wee 30 or 40 years ago. This is a medium that is stil experimenting with its formats and story structures and that leads to better quality TV as far as I'm concerned.
Again this is just my opinion, it doesn't have to be taken as gospel. But here is something that is fact. TOS has peaked. All of Trek has peaked. That could change with the new TOS movie. But if it doesn't what we have to come to realize is that the bulk of the fans who made Trek into the phenom it became are dwindling in number. And the new generations of viewers coming behind them as a whole care very little for TOS or any of the Treks. 10 to 20 to 30 years from now Kirk and Spock may be like Sherlock Holmes and Tarzan: still recognized by the public but not very relevant. And that's the optimistic view. Their episodic adventures involving Tribbles and Klingons could become simply a memory to a select few.
Of course that would still make TOS a bigger hit than DS9 but that's never been my argument anyway.
Well, I don't mean to keep writing these long winded responses so I'll stop here. But when I get time I will finally get around to commenting on why I think DS9 is a better show. That's what I probably should have done all along instead of giving my reasons regarding the popularity of series.
Last edited:
And Citizen Kane wasn't the best film of 1941 because it didn't win the Oscar.
Or to put it more abruptly, with the John Adams series (or even what they teach in 10th grade history), you walk up to a person on the street and ask, "Who was the father of the Revolution?" and they'll probably say "John Adams."
Yet, anyone with common sense well tell you it was the guy who wrote ... Common Sense.
DS9 has, and will continue to, endure just fine. DS9 stands the test of time just like TOS does. TOS and DS9 are both timeless shows (other than a few exceptions in TOS like the dreadful space hippy episode).
DS9's quality is above TOS because TOS was severely handicapped by it's episodic nature which dictated that nothing meaningful can happen to any character or story beyond one episode. Both of them are great shows because they both have compelling, unique characters with internal conflict amongst each other, and fantastic stories. DS9 is the evolved, higher quality version of the same thing, because DS9's characters' and stories' development went well-beyond one episode, whereas TOS did not.
TOS being more popular has absolutely nothing to do with it being better quality than DS9, nor because it stands the test of time better than DS9 does.
Okay. But if that's the case (and I don't disagree that it is), all you're really doing is saying that blue is better than red. There's no way anyone can comment on something like that. Why would you even bother to construct arguments as to why blue was better than red when you know they have zero substance?
The only thing that comment has to do with what I actually said, is to prove my point. The only reason you even know the movie Citizen Kane is precisely because it has endured the test of time due to its relevant and quality nature. Between the two, the superior movie is Citizen Kane.
And?
Because it's Star Trek, in name. TOS is what makes the spin-offs stick around. If DS9 wasn't a Star Trek program, its life would've been severely hindered. So, you should be thanking the superior quality of TOS for even breathing life into DS9 to begin with. And to aid in sustaining it.
No, DS9 is a product of its time, and this definitely shows with the war arcs. In fact, the only thing that really saved DS9 is the fact that it's a product of its time.
Well, by that statement I can tell that clearly you're a DS9 fanatic who will say anything. Not that that's a bad thing, but it really isn't relevant. If you think stories which run a length of one episode are "severely handicapped" and "dictate that nothing meaningful can happen" then clearly you know zero about storytelling.
Wrong.
I wasn't speaking in terms of today, but 1941 (or 42). If you ask the average person then that question, how many would say "How Green Was My Valley?"
And every non sequitur has humble beginnings.
How does DS9 having war arcs make it a product of it's time? War has always been part of human existence, it's not something new that suddenly came along during DS9's time. And to it's credit, unlike some other lesser shows, DS9 didn't try rip it's war arc stories directly from the newspaper headlines. There are many shows that try to be "relevant" by ripping war arc stories directly from the headlines and passing that off as "creative genius" when they regurgitate today's headlines as the stories of their shows. But DS9 is not one of them.
It is true that DS9 is highly relevant today due to how humans in the real world have happened to have echoed what happened in DS9, but that only speaks to the makers of DS9 putting a lot of insight into the nature of human beings into the DS9 show and the fact that humans in real-life never change. The DS9 makers were not psychic, they didn't see what would happen in this decade and then start writing about it during the previous decade.
Agreed. Can't spend too much time here tonight so I wil save responses and my feelings on DS9 for later. But I can point out that DS9 was ahead of its time. Of course terrorism and governments using fear of foreign enemies to justify taking rights away from its citizens in the name of protection were real life issues that had occurred throughout history long before DS9 came around. Still those issues never really hit home with Americans until after DS9 left the air. So much so that you could not think of a studio agreeing to do a a show with one of its lead heroes being a terrorist. And after recently watching "In the Hands of the Prophets" I am reminded of how the battle between science and faith/religion surfaced on this show in that episode long before the argument really started blowing up in America. Sure, elemets of this debate were always out there but its getting more public now and its actually deciding major state and national elections. There seems to be a growing divide with even reasonable people (like Kira in this episode) who do think science is more of a philosophy. Truly interesting stuff.
Similar threads
- Locked
