It just isThat would be a great slogan though- DS9: It's just better.
![]()

It just isThat would be a great slogan though- DS9: It's just better.
![]()
I don't recall anyone claiming objectivity on those specific matters. Are you sure you're not just being subjective yourself?![]()
The actual series is decent, but you Niners actually hurt it by deifying it compared to other Trek series.
Well, I love DS9 and I do not apologize for sounding off about its awesomeness in a DS9 forum! You love it or you don't. Same for any other show. To each his own. The show is not hurt by individual opinions. Like any other work, it speaks for itself.![]()
I'm a little curious as to how we could "hurt" the show in any case. It hasn't been on the air for quite some time now.
I think it the best trek series by a mile and don't see whats wrong with expressing that, also if some people are so petty to deliberately dislike something because it's fans love it the best well it's says more about them to be honest.Well I'm now in the middle of season 3, and while I like the show a lot more than I did originally, I still don't think it's more layered than other series.
What more detail and "layers" there are in the show were simply a offshoot benefit of the series being able to do things as an arc. But TNG and even Voyager had very similar arcs, and did keep continuity almost as well, even if they were more limited.
The actual series is decent, but you Niners actually hurt it by deifying it compared to other Trek series.
^I also don't think it is simply a matter of expressing that DS9 is better, but that it was different from all other Trek series (at least until the last seasons of Enterprise).
That would be a great slogan though- DS9: It's just better.
![]()
I am unapologetic in my love for DS9. I am one episode from finishing yet another rewatch right now and if anything I love it more than last time.
That said, I think that DS9 is what it is because of what came before. DS9 benefits from TNG (and obviously TOS) building up a universe to play in.
I don't recall anyone claiming objectivity on those specific matters. Are you sure you're not just being subjective yourself?![]()
Of course I'm being subjective.
But there are a small percentage of DS9 fans who swear that darkness is the same as depth, cynicism is the same as profundity, and that Roddenberry's belief that mankind can improve itself is idiotic and naive. And they use those arguments to dismiss all other Treks, and that can be a little bit obnoxious.
It's not liking DS9 the best that bothers me, but some Niners' attitude about it.
I love both TNG and DS9.
The thing is though, the whole "DS9=darker" is a little disingenuous. DS9 indeed went to some dark places, but it was also a much more confidently humorous Trek. (IMO) Maybe not hugely more than TOS, but certainly more than TNG.
For me, DS9 isn't darker or funnier or grittier (ugh) ...it's just that all those things (plus the serialization that TOS and TNG never got a chance to really do, and also the large cast of recurring characters) make for a Trek of more depth overall. I don't present any of those as some kind of proof that DS9 is the best Trek, it's just my reasons for liking it most.
If you're only up to WotW than you still haven't seen most of what I think makes a number of people prefer DS9 to TNG.
1. Being able to do more serialized story telling. Simply because it was allowed by TPTB. If TNG would have had this option, it would have had huge potential. Even so, TNG did try to keep continuity, even if it was just in passing moments.
I consider them (at least so far) apples and oranges. I don't want DS9 to have been about exploration. Frankly there aren't that many good exploration stories, and TNG burnt them all out (which is why Enterprise, and to an extent, Voyager fizzled out creatively).I'm fine with there being less exploration in DS9. This series spent more time exploring the internal workings of the Roddenberry's philosophy, and consequentially, did more than the other series to make it believable. Furthermore, it was about living with people and their problems, making it more relevant to today's world than the others. It didn't trivialize politics and social dynamics. And with importance put on psychology, beliefs, and relationships (particularly within families), it makes it seem that people are the center of the story, not superheroes.
ETA: before I look too much like the fanboy, I can appreciate your preference for TNG. It was once my favorite series too. However, the spin-offs needed their own identities, their own raisons d'etre, and DS9 did more to build on TNG's legacy than the others.
1. Being able to do more serialized story telling. Simply because it was allowed by TPTB. If TNG would have had this option, it would have had huge potential. Even so, TNG did try to keep continuity, even if it was just in passing moments.
DS9 was more than serialized Star Trek. Obviously, it was the most serialized, involving storylines and character developments that spanned seasons. And the other series had elements of continuity that, with more dedication and planning, could have been spun into longer narratives: the Year of Hell, the Xindi, the making of the Earth-Vulcan-Andoria-Tellar alliance. However, there are major differences by which all those things were developed and unfolded. In Voyager and Enterprise, the arcs could have been described as extended episodes, with (nearly) definitive beginnings and endings. The arcs in DS9 evolved organically as the writers took a critical look at their own work and what they could accomplish within individual episodes. The war which would become DS9's hallmark would have been concluded in Season 4. The writers, however, felt that it was irresponsible to make hasty conclusions, and that wars were more complex things than what could be resolved in three or four episodes. The collaboration of the writers did a lot to hold it together. Consider that the Braga's Temporal Cold War fizzled out, in part, because he wasn't good at that kind of long term planning.
I'm fine with there being less exploration in DS9. This series spent more time exploring the internal workings of the Roddenberry's philosophy, and consequentially, did more than the other series to make it believable. Furthermore, it was about living with people and their problems, making it more relevant to today's world than the others. It didn't trivialize politics and social dynamics. And with importance put on psychology, beliefs, and relationships (particularly within families), it makes it seem that people are the center of the story, not superheroes.
ETA: before I look too much like the fanboy, I can appreciate your preference for TNG. It was once my favorite series too. However, the spin-offs needed their own identities, their own raisons d'etre, and DS9 did more to build on TNG's legacy than the others.
I don't recall anyone claiming objectivity on those specific matters. Are you sure you're not just being subjective yourself?![]()
Of course I'm being subjective.
But there are a small percentage of DS9 fans who swear that darkness is the same as depth, cynicism is the same as profundity, and that Roddenberry's belief that mankind can improve itself is idiotic and naive. And they use those arguments to dismiss all other Treks, and that can be a little bit obnoxious.
It's not liking DS9 the best that bothers me, but some Niners' attitude about it.
I love both TNG and DS9.
Most of DS9 once the war kicks in is war war war, and personally I don't even think that well done
Actually, I have found that one of the primary sources of complaint directed toward Deep Space Nine's last two seasons is there being too many episodes that don't tie into the overall war arc. Episodes like "His Way," "Take Me Out to the Holosuite," and "Badda-Bing, Badda-Bang" are often derided for their seeming inconsequence and lack of relevancy to the overall plot. I, of course, am in in complete disagreement with these criticisms though.
So it can't be said that DS9's sole focus toward the end was the Dominion War. In fact, by that point, the show had built up a variety of other interweaving storylines such as those involving the Prophets, Ferengi, and countless individuals characters that only occasionally intersected with the War.
I don't think most people would say that the early seasons of DS9 are on par with the later seasons of TNG. Much like TNG, DS9 took a couple of seasons to find its footing.
Count me in as someone who vastly prefers DS9’s early seasons to the final years of TNG. At least in my view, Deep Space Nine had already surpassed the average quality of its illustrious predecessor half way through its second year—especially when compared with TNG’s seventh season, with which it ran concurrently.
The seventh season of The Next Generation embodied what that series had become in its later years: a lazy, pompous, unambitious shadow of its former self. Though TNG season 7 had a handful of great episodes such as “Parallels,” “Lower Decks,” “All Good Things…”, they were lost in a vast sea of mediocrity. (In stark contrast, Deep Space Nine’s seventh season was busy introducing new characters and elements, telling daring new stories, and shaking up the status quo.)
Meanwhile, as The Next Generation drifted further into complacency, Deep Space Nine was blooming into the vibrant, complex tapestry it would become for the remainder of its run. After kicking off with a risky series of episodes in the form of the Circle Trilogy, DS9 season two made a concerted effort to establish its own identity by further incorporating its colorful array of recurring characters and adding to the intricacies of its primary alien cultures and the changing scene of interstellar politics. Finally, the season culminated in the introduction of the Dominion, the Alpha Quadrant’s most multi-faceted threat.
In the end, it’s all a matter of personal preference. However, I do feel that TNG’s sixth and seventh seasons are afforded an excessive amount of leniency compared to their contemporary DS9 seasons.
HaventGotALife, I don't feel insulted. Nor was I trying to insult. I own some of DS9 - not a lot - and it's not usual for it to be on, when I just need some background noise, whilst I'm painting, cooking, or cleaning. I would never discourage anyone from watching this series. But I stand by my statements. These technicalities you pointed out about the specifications of the Defiant, or the opression of the Klingons, are merely splitting hairs. I know that you're trying to point out how mining so heavily from TNG only added to the ... to the texture ... the flavour of the series. But I enjoyed DS9 most for its original elements. Even Ezri Dax, whom I never found to be all that attractive or interesting, but my unfamiliarity with her species and her specifically helped the Seventh Season, in Jadzia's absence ...
My point is not to "split hairs." It is to show that even when using familiar elements (Worf, Miles O'Brien, having a ship, the 24th century version of Klingons), the show was able to maintain its themes and develop its characters.
I make this distinction because I don't believe the UPN shows--Enterprise and Voyager--did a very good job doing anything that was original. The Borg Queen didn't have layers added to her. She was the same in Voyager as she was in First Contact. The same thing with the Maquis. The creative juices were not flowing through those shows.
I don't know about you but any show that is a spinoff will have familiar characters and situations. But a good spinoff is one that tells an original story or does something unique with the "universe." For instance, Frasier was a successful spinoff from Cheers. While Frasier remained unchanged and was the center of the show, the characters around him became funny and endearing as any character on Cheers. That allowed them to tell interesting stories and situations without having to re-tread on Cheers. It wasn't set in a bar in Boston, for instance. It was a family and workplace drama of a different sort (a radio station). And as they brought characters from Cheers onto the show, the characters had a reason for being there. It furthered the show beyond just seeing them and expecting them to be the same characters. It showed how Frasier had changed in some respects from his time on Cheers.
Deep Space Nine is a good spinoff because it adds to the texture of the known 24th century universe. Sure, the Cardassians, Bajorans, and Trills had been in TNG. But they changed drastically from TNG to DS9. Uniforms, make-up, how they fit together in the universe, all of that changed. For instance, "Dr. Beverly" saw a bumpy-faced man who said that he was merely "a host," that "Edan" was the slug. In DS9, it's a symbiotic relationship between two individuals--the host and the symbiot.
I think the show didn't "sell out" as it were when it got a ship. We never had a prolonged threat. We had enemies, but it was essentially a peaceful time. This show, DS9, explored a prolonged threat to the entire Alpha Quadrant. How different species would react, how we can destroy ourselves, and how we will deal with an existential threat. Voyager didn't have anything that focused or concise.
Stand by it if you must, but I feel that DS9 is, indeed, an original spinoff. They weren't telling TNG stories on that show. Sisko wasn't a clone of Picard. As a matter of fact, it's more in the first season that they encounter "alien of the week" stories that mirror TNG. It's not until the middle of the second season that the show really takes off with its own brand of storytelling.
Indeed....My own opinion on the matter is that TNG and DS9 each built upon what its respective predecessors had established and improved upon those predecessors in many ways. VGR and ENT, by comparison, rehashed TNG rather than improving upon it.I think that DS9 is what it is because of what came before. DS9 benefits from TNG (and obviously TOS) building up a universe to play in.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.