Why didn't DS9 capture a large audience like all the other Treks?

[TheGodBen]

wait, it's "narrow-mindedness" that DS9 didn't capture a larger audience? That's a pretty arrogant view.


I like DS9, but I don't think that people who were previous Trek fans but couldn't get into DS9 are "narrow-minded."

There is a certain element of that though. Sure, plenty of people have watched DS9 and just don't like it, that's fair enough, but there are also people that didn't like DS9 just because it was a stationary show.

Back in 2001, the BBC had a Star Trek night including a documentary about the various shows. TOS had plenty of time devoted to it, as you would rightly expect, and TNG had plenty of time devoted to it, which is also to be expected. When they came to DS9 they mentioned that it broke new ground by having a black captain, then there was a clip from some British celebrity saying something like "DS9 was weird because it was like a bus station in space and people sat around waiting for something to happen". And that was it, on to Voyager where they spent a few minutes discussing that show, then they talked about the upcoming Enterprise. The final word, the only word, about DS9 came from someone that clearly hadn't bothered watching past the first season, because it was much more important to discuss Janeway's various hairstyles.

And I thought as a public service broadcaster the BBC was supposed to be impartial.

Still sad that Braga never got his wish on that. There were so many problems with the structure of Voyager, an arch where they were actually "roughing it" could have been interesting.

It kind of happened with the third season of Enterprise, with the irony of Braga being pushed to the side most of that season to make room for the other writers.

 

[Sykonee]

I believe someone on the board has a complete week-by-week graph that makes the point more definitively

Close enough:

Source

 

[indranee]

Firstly, I dispute the claim. While both shows were on the air, DS9 consistently had higher ratings than Voyager, and it obviously had higher ratings than Enterprise. The show's ratings started out really well (Emissary had the highest ratings for any modern Trek episode when it first aired) but they declined considerably over the course of the 7 years. The same is true of Voyager; it started out with strong ratings and gradually declined from there. The only Trek show that didn't suffer from ratings decline during its first run was TNG.

If you're asking why DS9 didn't catch on in the public's consciousness, I think it suffered from being "that other Trek show" during its whole run. It started out playing second fiddle to TNG, which was one of the biggest shows on TV at the time, then Voyager came along and it got a lot of attention as it was the flagship show of the UPN network and they pushed it with advertising. DS9, being in syndication and not being TNG, was left to flounder.

Personally, I'm glad of this. Voyager was the focus of attention for Paramount and there's numerous examples of executive meddling screwing up that show and keeping the writers on a leash. DS9 didn't attract the same level of attention from the suits in Paramount so Ira and co were free to push the envelope more. For example, the Dominion War was originally meant to last only 4 episodes at most, but because the execs were more interested in shooting down Braga's idea for a year-long Year of Hell arc, DS9's writers got away with extending the war over two seasons.

Agreed with everything you wrote there, especially your second and last paragraphs. And I submit another example of non-suit meddling in DS9: the Dax and Lenara kiss.

I know some people who started out watching DS9 but let it go because it was too dark (physically) and too complicated.

 

[indranee]

DS9 had higher ratings, but Seven of Nine helped Voyager pop-culture wise, I'd guess.


One important thing to note is that by DS9's time, quality television sci-fi was no longer so special. 1993 saw "X-Files" and "Babylon 5" start.

DS9 never got to "go it alone" as a series like TOS and TNG did. It always had other Trek on TV.

TNG was just in another era, whered there wasn't much in the way of good tv sci-fi.

Not to mention Buffy. DS9 was, to me, the forefather of all the story-arced, continuity-laced shows. IOW, yes, quality tv.

To me, it's still very significant that Emissary had the highest viewership of all Trek premieres. That means there was a LOT of interest in the so-called sequel for TNG. The steepness of the ratings graphics after that is difficult to digest.

 

[DWF]

UPN ran a special before Voyager's finale aired because it was their show -- and their first show and probably their most successful drama at that -- whereas DS9 was syndicated.

What special? I don't recall seeing any special for Voyager before their finale.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

To me, it's still very significant that Emissary had the highest viewership of all Trek premieres. That means there was a LOT of interest in the so-called sequel for TNG. The steepness of the ratings graphics after that is difficult to digest.

A new series is more heavily promoted through advertising and through "free media" - magazine, newspaper and TV interviews, etc - than the studio invests in week-to-week promotion of an ongoing series.

We can safely assume that the first-week viewership of DS9 consisted of virtually every TNG viewer plus millions of folks who were curious based on the publicity.

Just about every series sheds viewers for the first few weeks after its premiere, as the folks who were "sampling" but aren't grabbed by the premiere move on.

This is true for the Trek series following DS9 as well - it's true for just about any TV series. Notice that the premiere viewership for Voyager was higher than the same week viewership for DS9, and that Enterprise premiered quite a bit higher than Voyager left off.

BTW, comparisons of TNG and DS9 ratings with Voyager and Enterprise ratings usually involves a certain apples-and-oranges aspect - reported ratings for first-run syndication shows were generally "gross average audience" (GAA) ratings for several airings during the week while network shows are simply the rating for a single airing (Paramount's syndication contracts for TNG and DS9 with local stations permitted two first-run airings within a seven or eight day window). One can choose to assume that DS9 was watched by more people than Voyager or vice versa, but that's not exactly what the ratings represent.

 

[ReadyAndWilling]

i just don't see why DS9 character's didnt have the same affect as the other shows.

most recognise the really distinctive looking characters like picard, worf, data, spock etc. but DS9 had a VERY distinctive looking quark and odo and yet nobody knows about them.

everyone knows that klingons are some kind of warrior race. yet nobody knows what a jemhadar is even though they're IMO better characters. to be honest, i didn't even know about the jemhadar until i started watching DS9. i had watched all of VOY and all of ENT and didn't know about them.

 

[sonak]

i just don't see why DS9 character's didnt have the same affect as the other shows.

most recognise the really distinctive looking characters like picard, worf, data, spock etc. but DS9 had a VERY distinctive looking quark and odo and yet nobody knows about them.

everyone knows that klingons are some kind of warrior race. yet nobody knows what a jemhadar is even though they're IMO better characters. to be honest, i didn't even know about the jemhadar until i started watching DS9. i had watched all of VOY and all of ENT and didn't know about them.

Dude, the reason the CHARACTERS from TOS and TNG are widely recognized was because the SHOWS themselves were pop culture phenomenons.

Had DS9 been a massive hit, its characters would've been recognized too.

 

[Too Much Fun]

Voyager was the focus of attention for Paramount and there's numerous examples of executive meddling screwing up that show and keeping the writers on a leash. DS9 didn't attract the same level of attention from the suits in Paramount so Ira and co were free to push the envelope more. For example, the Dominion War was originally meant to last only 4 episodes at most, but because the execs were more interested in shooting down Braga's idea for a year-long Year of Hell arc, DS9's writers got away with extending the war over two seasons.

This is the first time I'm actually almost grateful that "Star Trek: Voyager" exists. If it was the sacrificial lamb that allowed "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" to do some of its best material while it suffered all the meddling that might have held DS9 back, its mediocrity was not for naught.

 

[Trek Survivor]

I also dispute the initial premise.

And what's with all the season 1-2 hate??

 

[indolover]

DS9's initial premise let it down.

TOS' was simple - to boldly go where no man has gone before. I dislike TOS a lot, but give it credit since its ethos made the franchise what it is today.

TNG's premise was also simple. The flagship of the Federation exploring new space and charting through known space.

Voyager's premise is arguably the best. Since TOS, TNG and DS9 were set in the Alpha Quadrant. Voyager had an almost untapped area to explore, and this must have been a writer's dream. Even Enterprise was at heart an exploration based show, at least it was meant to build the framework as to how the Federation began.

DS9 had, IMO, whining and shallowly written Bajorans (they were oppressed, far enough, but there is a difference to feeling unjustly treated and having a victim complex), an intriguing neighbour in the Cardassians, and a space station that did not go anywhere. I think this setting initially turned a lot of people off, since there was no exploration involved. Personally, I would have had the Defiant from the pilot, and use this to actually chart Gamma Quadrant space. In this sense, irking the Dominion unintentionally would have made more sense.

DS9 evidently turned out to be a stellar show, but some slight tweaking in pre-production concepts and implementation could have made it more appealing.

 

[toughlittleship]

DS9 seemed to have a lot of competition, something I don't remember TNG having.

 

[Bishop76]

What competition other than Babylon 5?

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

UPN ran a special before Voyager's finale aired because it was their show -- and their first show and probably their most successful drama at that -- whereas DS9 was syndicated.

What special? I don't recall seeing any special for Voyager before their finale.

I'm using a potentially confusing term; I'm referring to the news story. Or was that not on UPN?

 

[Bishop76]

I don't remember a special before it, but I had stopped watching Voyager by that season and just tuned in to see the final episode itself, but didn't notice anything before it. But again, I was just there more to laugh at how bad Endgame was.

 

[DS9forever]

The DS9 Wikipedia article cites Hercules, Xena etc as competitors.

 

[indolover]

Hercules/Xena were not really sci-fi shows. Hercules was part of ancient Greek mythology, did sci-fi exist back then? lol... In terms of pure sci-fi, I wouldn't even say the X-Files fit the bill. Babylon 5 to me was the only true competitor. Also, TNG was the first Trek show in 20 years or so before it, so this raised expectations/viewership somewhat.

 

[Bishop76]

I had forgotten about those shows. They are pretty much SF&F genre shows and they did about as well in the ratings as DS9 did, maybe a little lower.

 

[Sykonee]

There were a lot of would-be Trek competitors during the 90s. Seaquest, Space: Above & Beyond, Earth 2... um, that one with aliens on Earth, no the other one.

 

[Bishop76]

Yeah, but none of those were real competitors - Xena and Herc and B5 actually were.