Perhaps its just that DS9 was a very niche type of show. Like I know a lot of people who dont like trek, but could easily just tune into a episode of TNG, or even Voyager. It seems like people who arent trek fans might like the odd bit of TNG, TOS or VOY, but only trekkies like DS9, and not even all of those.
Why didn't DS9 capture a large audience like all the other Treks?
- Thread starter ReadyAndWilling
- Start date
That's how I've felt about DS9 for a long time.
Then you never watched the show.
Watch "All Good Things" to plainly see how much Data changed over the course of 7 years, the contrast is right there in neighbouring scenes! Heck, the change in Data is almost jarringly obvious when Michael Pillar joined the writing team.
And then watch the child hating, soo serious and too stern and proper Picard of early seasons turn into the more relaxed and less uptight captain of the later seasons who is much more comfortable with his crew.
It's all there if you're willing to look. Sometimes changes are subtle and realistic, you know.
Ill have to watch 'All good things...' again and get back to you. As for Picard, I dont really see that as character development. They just changed the character (outside of the show) to make him less annoying, it wasnt an in-show change.
You clearly do need to watch All Good Things again, and pay particular attention to that final scene. "I should have done this a long time ago." That was an acknowledgement by Picard that he has changed and it was the final step in the transformation between treating his crew as co-workers and treating them as his friends. It was a subtle transformation, but it was there.
Okay, Ill accept that. However, Id say that the writers of TNG were probably not actively progressing the characters to this point, and that it was more of an organic process which was then reflected on. On DS9 it seemed like the writers were actively developing the characters, and thats the original point I was trying to make. You can just leave a character like Troi alone and give her the occasional episode, whereas with Dax, even though the writers acknowledged she wasnt working, they had to give her character a whole big development arc.
We have many more television channels, and the ratings-needed-to-survive varies considerably among them. Voyager never would have survived on one of the major networks like ABC, NBC, or CBS. At least, not with those ratings...
Instead, Voyager was on a relatively new and niche channel (UPN) that eventually merged with another relatively small niche channel (the WB).
A break-down of the different tv shows:
The original Star Trek was on a major network (NBC). TNG and DS9 were in first-run syndication (meaning not made for a specific channel--purchased in different markets by different television stations--something not as viable today). Voyager and Enterprise were on a relatively small network (UPN).
I think there was a major change in picard over time. Look at how he reacted to kids in the first season compared to the episode where he and young crusher crash on that planet before going to the academy, and look a the episode where he goes home to france and how he treats his nephew and when he finds out his nephew and brother die in the fire.
They don't know what they are missing .
Yeah, I know how US TV works, I'm just surprised a show can be profitable with only 4 million viewers in a country that size. But then Star Trek was always gold dust for the merchandising, reruns, and international audience I guess.
Smaller networks depend upon 1) spending a lot less on their shows (everything from salaries to production) and 2) niche advertising revenue.
Something that attracted me to this thread was the price of ds9 on dvd. You can find tng used all over everywhere, but I can never find any ds9 new or used except on amazon and even then its 50 bucks though now I noticed it dropped to 40. Why do you think the dvds are so expensive? TNG doesn't cost near as much when you factor in the used prices for a season.
It's Quark slipping in some tariffs and fees. DS9 is the only Star Trek series with a Ferengi on its cast.
See, my anecdotal experience is totally different. My mother refers to DS9 as "That one with the man who lives in a bucket" and "That one with the man with a bum for a head" 
TNG I doubt she could pick up out of a line up, and I doubt she's even heard of Voyager.
In terms of the iconicity of characters, ratings and viewership aside, I wonder if the fact it had such a large ensemble cast also had something to do with it. Personally I loved the way the show worked, and I think it was one of its strengths that it had and used such a large cast, but any one of the characters might either carry an episode themselves, or be pushed to a bit part for weeks, and as a result there's no particular stand-out character you could point to and say "This is the main character" or even a "big three". Maybe this lead to no individual particularly sticking out in most casual viewer's minds?
TNG I doubt she could pick up out of a line up, and I doubt she's even heard of Voyager. In terms of the iconicity of characters, ratings and viewership aside, I wonder if the fact it had such a large ensemble cast also had something to do with it. Personally I loved the way the show worked, and I think it was one of its strengths that it had and used such a large cast, but any one of the characters might either carry an episode themselves, or be pushed to a bit part for weeks, and as a result there's no particular stand-out character you could point to and say "This is the main character" or even a "big three". Maybe this lead to no individual particularly sticking out in most casual viewer's minds?
Saquist
Commodore
I....said no such thing, sir.
I said it was suffering from a lack of imagination. No where in that statement above did I say that Trek failed because of a lack of imagination. No where did I say that DS9 broke any mold. Whose post were you actually reading?
What mold was DS9 supposed to have broken?
The template was exactly the same as TNG. Seven Characters, Main Character the Commanding Officer, everyone humanoid with stories diversified to each character in an episodic manner. Are we really going to call the setting of the space station as a "mold breaking event"? Put the show on a starship, does it really change any of the story lines?
Breaking the Mold in the old Trek formula would be ...
A Heavy focus on one main character.
More action than adventure
Changing the entire look of the show (like Star Trek 2009)
Becoming a suspense series like LOST
I....said no such thing, sir.
I said it was suffering from a lack of imagination. No where in that statement above did I say that Trek failed because of a lack of imagination. No where did I say that DS9 broke any mold. Whose post were you actually reading?
What mold was DS9 supposed to have broken?
The template was exactly the same as TNG. Seven Characters, Main Character the Commanding Officer, everyone humanoid with stories diversified to each character in an episodic manner. Are we really going to call the setting of the space station as a "mold breaking event"? Put the show on a starship, does it really change any of the story lines?
Breaking the Mold in the old Trek formula would be ...
A Heavy focus on one main character.
More action than adventure
Changing the entire look of the show (like Star Trek 2009)
Becoming a suspense series like LOST
oh come on, your rationale for describing DS9 as being no different from TNG is just silly.
First off, DS9 had eight main characters, not seven, and a much bigger recurring character list.
The setting was totally different, their mission was much more political than exploratory, the show was much more serialized, there was a full-on WAR going on for the last two seasons, etc.
DS9 was the most different of all of the Trek shows. Like it or not, you can't really dispute that. Saying it's the same because "most of the characters were humanoid" and "the captain was the main character" is just reaching for the sake of making your argument. DS9 was closer to BSG or Babylon 5 than it was to the rest of Trek.
The characters on almost all on-screen sci-fi will be humanoid, because of budgetary reasons.
your argument is like saying there's no difference between "Sherlock Holmes" and "Monk," because they're both about male detectives who often work in cooperation with the police.
Saquist
Commodore
Hmmm. I have no knowledge about "Monk" and I appreciate that you subtracted the critical part of my argument. Perhaps you couldn't effectively counter it. But the point was most effectively made by the comparisons of what Trek didn't do to break the mold.
For example.
SGU attempted to "break the mold" of Stargate's Action Adventure and Humor by creating a slower paced human drama.
For example.
The game Wing Commander "Broke the Mold" in the 90's by making the first Video Game in a Movie setting where your actions had an impact on the route to victory.
Babylon 5 "Broke the Mold" by using ALL CGI with a weekly budget.
Matrix broke the mold by training actors to accomplish real intricate martial arts moves in movies successfully and convincingly. It was also the first time CGI was used in combination with Film to provide a 360 view of the action.
Was DS9 more political: Not really. TNG had it's fair share of political intrigue in fact it likely has more than any other Trek series. I think we believe DS9 was more because of the continual diplomacy between Cardassia Bajor and the Federation but Enterprise was always fairing diplomats negoiating peace treaties and solving problems most often with the pen rather than the sword.
Was DS9 more serialized: Yes, it had more continuous plot threads because of the emphasis on Drama and Character
DS9 did break that Trek mold but it wasn't the radical change breaking the mold describes. TNG broke that mold first from TOS. I there was one episode "Menagerie" and CAGE which were flowing story lines every thing else was purely episodic. So do we really give DS9 credit for being more? I don't think that's particularly fair or objective.
DS9 was the first Trek Series to be at War:
Sure but it wasn't all it's cracked up to be. After Season 5 the War essentially was dormant in Season 6. It was almost like it didn't matter after they got back to DS9. Then consider that Babylon 5 had a more substantial war in a more desperate situation and it was going on at the same time as DS9 definitely takes the wind out of that sail.
If we're going to say that DS9 broke the Trek mold just because of a setting change from ship to station or a quest change from exploration to diplomacy then certainly Voyager was breaking the mold too by changing the quest from being in home waters to being lost. And I don't believe that either.
I think the fact that DS9 later years where the last gasp of first run syndication (Too many independent channels joined one network or another. In my area when TNG started it was WJZY, which would sign off at 2am!) there was 100's of such stations, all looking for shows to broadcast, and syndication was key to provide original programming to these stations. This was back when cable might of been A&E and TNN. TNG provided these stations with a top of the line show with top actors. Then they added DS9, which I happened to like from the get-go (I was a teen at the time, I would would watch it just for Jazdia and Kira, that you very much.) and in many cases the station would block together TNG and DS9. (at the time, TNG, Baywatch, and DS9 was the holy trinity for these shows. TNG went off with a well respected run. (they could of milked it for another year or two, but they wanted to get the TNG cast to the movies, as the formula was running out of steam.) and DS9 found itself with TONS of syndication shows, Stuff like Xena even if it was fantasy was still trying to dislodge DS9 as a top dog syndication. Then when UPN and the other channel (think it was called CW) came on board, it was basically a block package of syndication. Voyager was the lynch-pin for UPN. This forced DS9 into all sorts of odd hours, and even a fan would have a hard time finding it. (Not like the internet today where you could look it up when it was showing.)
Finally, for example, I went off to school (the local indi channel where I went to school did not show DS9, it was a Xena runner) and I come back, and I turn DS9 on, and suddenly I see that the Klingons are attacking DS9, and I was lost, as I had not seen the long arc where Klingnons had broken the treaty.
Later on I found DS9 on DVD, saved my pennies, and bought them new from amazon. Along with Band of brothers it was the best expensive DVD purchase I have made.
Finally, for example, I went off to school (the local indi channel where I went to school did not show DS9, it was a Xena runner) and I come back, and I turn DS9 on, and suddenly I see that the Klingons are attacking DS9, and I was lost, as I had not seen the long arc where Klingnons had broken the treaty.
Later on I found DS9 on DVD, saved my pennies, and bought them new from amazon. Along with Band of brothers it was the best expensive DVD purchase I have made.
I guess I just don't understand your arguments. Your definition of "breaking the mold" includes things like use of CGI in a weekly series and having actors use martial arts.
To me, that's window dressing. That's special effects stuff, it's not related to premise, characters, etc.
You kind of agree with a lot of my examples, including the war, serialized storytelling, new setting, etc. but don't include that as "different" enough because TNG did some of that stuff.
Well, TNG had some periodic recurring storylines, but it was nothing like DS9's. TNG was 95% episodic, except mainly for the Klingon Empire/Worf stuff, and some relationship stuff, like Picard/Bev, and Riker/Troi. What DS9 did with its long storyline arcs was something that had never been done on TOS or TNG.
I don't think DS9 was the most daringly original sci-fi show by any means. But it did break the mold for Trek, by any reasonable standard.
