It seems to me that a lot fans don't think DS9 became a really good show until season 3, with the introduction of the Defiant, and season 4, when the "war arch" began in earnest (first with the Klingons, then the Dominion). A lot of people have commented on the "TNG-style" of the first two seasons, with a lot of stand-alone episodes that don't seem to have any over-riding point or story to tell and that aren't all that good. When people make lists of the worst DS9 episodes, I've noticed that a lot of the episodes come from the first two seasons.
So were these seasons a total waste? Do they matter at all--that is, does anything important or interesting really happen in them? Or are fans better off just watching (and re-watching!) the series from season 3 on?
And on a related note, why did the series change? Whose decision was it to add the Defiant, add Worf, bring back the Klingons as adversaries and later introduce the Dominion War arch? Did it have anything to do with the end of TNG--thereby freeing up writers and producers to work on the new series? Who were the people that made the show was it is today--generally considered the best Star Trek spin-off?
These are a lot of questions I've had on my mind lately. No doubt this topic has been discussed before!
So were these seasons a total waste? Do they matter at all--that is, does anything important or interesting really happen in them? Or are fans better off just watching (and re-watching!) the series from season 3 on?
And on a related note, why did the series change? Whose decision was it to add the Defiant, add Worf, bring back the Klingons as adversaries and later introduce the Dominion War arch? Did it have anything to do with the end of TNG--thereby freeing up writers and producers to work on the new series? Who were the people that made the show was it is today--generally considered the best Star Trek spin-off?
These are a lot of questions I've had on my mind lately. No doubt this topic has been discussed before!