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

Don't know what show you watched.

 

I would say this, there was character development on TNG but it was slow and awkward.

 

There were obviously changes made in the first two seasons, but I dont view that as development. Rather, it was people changing the show outside of the shows context in order to make it better.

Aside from that I dont really see any development. In any case, even if TNG had a development rate of 1, DS9 had a development rate of 20, which is the point I was trying to make.

 

Again, what show were you watching? Four episodes from season four, one for each of the characters I mentioned, provide good evidence of character development: Family, Brothers, Reunion, and The Wounded. There are plenty of other examples, especially in seasons 3-7.

If you want to say that TNG is a procedural drama instead of a serial drama like DS9, then that is fine and fair. But to say, that on TNG there was no character development, or only insignificant character development, is a hyperbolic distortion that does not fit the facts.

 

The races in the Trek universe were always intended to reflect the politics of Earth so I'm not sure how this can be a a fault of DS9.

Meanwhile, the 'exploring brave new worlds' trope had become merely lip service to the original series long before DS9 came along. On TNG the Enterprise gradually turned into a 24-century bus that ferried troublesome passengers from one conference to the next.

 

Totally agree! I really don't get the hate for the second season of DS9. The 8-episode run of excellent episodes starting with Blood Oath and concluding with the finale wouldn't be matched by the show again until many years later (and arguably was a high-water mark for all Trek series up to that point).

Cardassians, Necessary Evil, Blood Oath, The Wire, Whispers, The Collaborator, Tribunal, The Maquis two-parter, the Circle Trilogy - all are first-class episodes. The second season wasn't one of DS9's worst seasons, it's actually one of its best.

 

I think theres a difference between a character story and a story which develops the character. Okay, in 'The Wounded' we learn a bit more about O'Brien, thats fair, but it doesnt really change his character. The circumstances of Worf's character changes a lot, 'Reunion' being one of the eps that does this, but again, theres no real change in Worf himself.

 

Wrong, times 4.

 

I think Season 2 gets hated because it's "pre-Dominion" and gets tied to that lead weight or pair of cement shoes that is Season 1 in hindsight when it is distinct from it (clearly change behind the scenes in the writing/tone of the stories, the use of runabouts to explore the Gamma Quadrant and local region space around DS9). It seems to be from post-series run categorization of the series: pre-Dominion, Dominion build-up, Dominion war that Season 2 gets this stigma. I also think at the time (1993-94), everyone was focused on TNG for their historic 7th & final season, so what DS9 was doing wasn't getting as much attention.

People who hate DS9 should be able to provide specific episodes and seasonal elements to explain their dislike of Season 2. If they can't and if they can't somehow explain away "The Maquis", "The Wire", "Crossover", "The Jem'Hadar", and "Whispers", "Tribunal", "Paradise", "Shadowplay", "Necessary Evil", etc, then their dislike is less a thing of substance and more a thing of feeling.


It is sad because it is a great season with many classic episodes. It doesn't have too many clunkers ("Rivals", "Sanctuary" come to mind) and people have noted how good that last third or so of the season was and there being good episodes scattered across the rest of the season.

I wonder how many people noticed "Crossover" on its 1st run. It aired the weekend of TNG's 2nd to final episode, but remember, TNG's series finale was being heavily promoted and at least some stations even moved it to a weeknight primetime slot to air (less than a week after "Preemptive Strike"). DS9's Mirror Universe premiere episode was overshadowed by TNG's finale. I wonder if more people paid attention to it with its rerun broadcast (checking... week of 8/29/94) or with "Through the Looking Glass".

 

We must have different definitions of "thorough" then.

Picard was basically the same character from first to last. What you call thorough, I call shallow.

Data's quest to become "a real boy" was negated by the idiotic way he got killed off in Nemesis. which was insulting to the character, since his obvious replacement was introduced before he died - I hadn't been spoiled on his death but the minute I saw B-4, I knew Data had had it.

O'Brien: Getting married is an incident, not "character development." Ditto for appearing in episodes. Many long-running series feature characters that never develop one iota - that's the episodic structure vs serialized. O'Brien was not developed in TNG or DS9.

Worf might have loosened up some, but he was still Worf. DS9 developed him enough so at the end he was able to admit that Klingons yammer too much about their honor, but even that is moving from point A to B, not to M or Z.

Compare that to the development of Damar - from sycophantic minion/thug loyal to Dukat, to conflicted alcoholic subordinate of the Dominion, to rebel leader to martyr. Or Kira, who went from loathing Cardassians to having sympathy for them, seeing them as fellow beings worthy of forgiveness and respect. Even DS9 didn't develop most of its characters like that, but no other Trek series even did that much.

 

Rather than only uttering a blunt "wrong", I'll defend why the TNG examples I listed are of character development. According to TV Tropes,

Family: Picard has an emotional breakdown over having been forced by the Borg to kill. In the process, he and his brother are able to reconcile their differences. Having been assimilated is something that will repeatedly haunt Picard.

Brothers: This episode kicks off the emotion chip-arc, which continues in Descent. The availability of a means to experience emotions is modification of Data's character, since up to this point, it was believed that Data could not feel emotions.

Reunion: Worf discovers that he is a father. Enraged to the point of disregarding his duties in Starfleet by the murder of K'Ehleyr, Worf seeks venegence by killing Duras. Worf bonds with Alexander. Of these four, this is probably the best example of character development. Being a father brings out new dimensions in Worf, in his scenes with Alexander.

The Wounded: O'Brien comes to terms with, and overcomes, his prejudice against Cardassians.

Being a procedural drama, instead of a serial drama, the type of development shown in TNG was of course considerably more limited than that shown in DS9. The point I am making is that some character development occurred nevertheless. Above it was stated that no development occurred at all in TNG. That is just not true.

 

DS9 is my favorite television show of all time but it is not perfect. I think one element that prevented it from reaching its full potential are the Ferengi episodes which stick out like towers of idiocy throughout the seven seasons. I rewatch the show at least once a year but even I tend to skip over these abominations. My father was a big TOS and TNG fan but he disliked DS9. That's because the first episode he saw was The Nagus. He never watched another episode of DS9. So that makes me wonder how many other casual fans were turned off by the Ferengi sitcoms and how much stronger the show might have performed without them.

 

Ah, the Ferengi episodes. The bone (lobes) of contention in DS9. There are several things to consider about these episodes.

1st, all Ferengi episodes are Quark episodes but not all Quark episodes are Ferengi episodes. "Profit and Loss", "Business as Usual" are examples.

1.) Quark was evidently one of DS9's most popular characters during the original run (at least the early seasons), up there with Odo. This would explain why Quark continued to get at least 2 episodes/season centered on him (and not fade into the background like Neelix did), why "Ferengi episodes" weren't abandoned for Quark episodes (they could have stopped featuring the Nagus, Brunt and just have it be Quark episodes with the only other Ferengi as Rom & Nog), as well as why Odo vs. Quark was continually featured.


2.) Look at the episode ratings. Quark/Ferengi episodes have ratings on par with the surrounding episodes (out of memory, I think "Ferengi Love Songs" might've been very low, but it was the worst F/Q ep). Nielsen recorded ratings every 15 min and averages it all together. Combine those 2 things together and it means, once people saw it was a Quark or Ferengi episode, they *didn't* tune out. Many people may grumble about Ferengi episodes now, but back then, the majority of the viewers didn't mind.

Another aspect of that is people take the series more serious now than they did then. Might have to do with the Dominion War arc and in hindsight seeing the series as one giant story with a lot of standalones, like Babylon 5 (except the balance of standalone:story is very different) and not as just a tv series with a bunch of episodes and some (but not heavy) continuity, That would make people get more upset with "frivolous" episodes.


3.) I'm not sure why some people are so offended by them (except "Ferengi Love Songs" and "Profit and Lace"). If they wanted another conventional level of drama or seriousness, there's still at least 24 other episodes in the season. 26 episode seasons was one of the best things about Star Trek. Quark episodes are usually a "Meanwhile..." or interlude. If they didn't like the fact Quark was on the show, then some other character would need to take his place as a primary cast member. And while "Ferengi Love Songs" was atrocious with a capital A, the non-Ferengi portion of the series has that steaming pile "Let He Who is Without Sin...".

There is also some benefit that the silliness is diverted to a B-story character and generally kept away from the rest of the series. Voyager wasn't as fortunate ("Fair Haven", "Spirit Folk". "Bride of Chaotica" was good though). It didn't stop DS9 from some stupid forays though ("His Way", "Badda-Bing, Badda-Bang"). *sigh* Why did the writers never learn that 90% of holodeck episodes S-U-C-K? They should've learned it from TNG. DS9 & VOY could have been virtually free of holodeck episodes. The benefit is there isn't risk of contamination as sometimes comedic episodes can be so bad they tarnish the series as a whole by straining credularity/suspension of disbelief (X-Files and Xena were particularly affected by this, and I would argue the Barclay episodes of Voyager were just as bad as "Je' Souhaite", "Fight Club", and the other atrocious comedy eps X-Files had). "Ferengi Love Songs" didn't produce toxic backwash that flooded into the rest of the series. It was contained in its sidechannel. Would one have wanted more forays like "Let He Who is Without Sin..." or "Take Me Out to the Holosuite", where the whole cast partakes in a comedy ep rather than just Quark and some supporting characters?



I wonder, was making the final Mirror Universe episode ("The Emperor's New Cloak") a Ferengi episode the result of wanting an inverse effect? All other Mirror Universe episodes occurred during the regular, peacetime era of DS9 (or Klingon-Cardassian War). It was the only Dominion War era MU episode. Since there were many dark or somber episodes, was the motive the writers wanting to lighten things up and use the Mirror Universe in an ironic way?

 

So, if its the change in characterisation of a Dynamic Character, then I still think Im right. Those characters all changed within the story, but then they changed right back again. Those changes generally reappeared when the story point was returned to and not when the characters themselves were returned to. The characters in DS9 show differences over time even if the things that caused those differences were not related to the story that was being told in that particular episode.

I dont see any change in the characterisation of Data, Picard, Worf or O'Brien.

 

It didn't though - it dropped the "extra viewers" that tend to sample an effectively-promoted new show for a week or two, and then settled in a little lower than TNG and began to fade out over a long period of time. It's not unusual at all for spin-offs of popular TV series to fail to achieve the same level of popularity as the parent show; DS9's performance wasn't at all odd in that respect.

There is definitely such a thing as "I've watched hundreds of hours of this and it's repetitious. I was fifteen when I started, I'm twenty-five now and - surprise! - I've outgrown this."

That's exactly what happened with Star Trek in the 1990s. As much as I dislike DS9, I think you'd be hard-pressed to convince many hard-core Trek fans that for their purposes DS9 represented a qualitative decline in the quality of Trek on television - yet the series bled viewers.

 

Lots of good series don't catch on with viewers; it's practically a cliche. Maybe it's as simple as viewers being put off by a black guy (and not a safe black guy; an angry black guy) as the lead.

Sorry to be cynical, but that very well could have been it. Or maybe it was because there was no spaceship and spaceship-oriented missions. Too different from the expected. It didn't help that history wasn't on the side of any space opera show on network TV.

 

Here in Australia, we generally had Deep Space Nine on around 11pm on a Thursday night, after the rugby league footy show. Quite often it would start later, as Footy Show was running overtime. Zero advertising, so it was really word of mouth. Plus there was other scifi like Babylon 5 and buffy on other networks.

When Voyager started, the premiere and a few episodes, it was given a 8.30pm timeslot on a Saturday night. It failed to rate, and was pushed to a late timeslot on a Tuesday night. By season 7 of Deep Space Nine - it was between 11.30pm and midnight. I found it easier to watch both shows, by hiring VHS copies and watching them years later, as I annoyed with the network. Same happened with Enterprise.

 

I was a little too young to watch tng ds9 and voyager being 11 when voyager finished it's run, but I do remember when star trek nemesis went to theaters. Anyways When this happened I remeber tv guide doing a trek special comparing all the shows and hailing ds9 for its orginality for not being on a ship and for its' character development. These two praises I have heard over and over again from the different tv peopele. That being said i think ds9 wasn't as big (even now you can find tng used all over but can't find ds9 anywhere) is because it was never by itself. TNG was the only star trek show and the only really good sci fi at the time. ds9 came in 93 and had to compete with the end of tng. Then it gets 2 years by itself as the only trek and voyager comes along. I guess and maybe I am wrong but it seems to me it never got to go at it alone for any long period of time. Even when it was alone it had to compete with xfiles and so forth. Watching it now I think it has overall better character development then tng.

 

In England it was on BBC2 at 6.30, right after The Simpsons (when The Simpsons was still a good show). Thats a really good slot, and still it didnt really get watched. I think it just didnt have the same sense of wonder or adventure as the others.

 

Something that can't be under estimated is how new TNG looked when it came on the air to have a good show set in space with (for the time) really cool special effects was monumental.