Why Didn't DS9 Have as Many Viewers as TNG?

[Arpy]

I was a bit fatigued by TNG, but I'd got used to its slow, thoughtful pace, spelt out decision making, and happy endings.

Although I think everybody likes a happy ending, I don't think they're the reason for TNG's success, or lots of cheesy shows throughout history would have been bigger successes with just that.

But I wonder if the Observation Lounge scenes on TNG weren't part of its success. This is science-fiction after all, and isn't the part that makes it really interesting the figuring out of new things? I think part of TNG's success was its procedural aspect. Law & Order was about law, CSI about forensics, ER about medicine, TNG about starshiping. And they didn't just glass planet surfaces to clear their problems; they figured things out...were that our politics today were so.

Some of the most interesting scenes in "In the Pale Moonlight" were the conversations. Sisko and Dax roleplaying about what the Romulans would say, Sisko and Garak about whether or not to pay off the forger with biomimetic gel (or whatever it was), Sisko and Vreenak...come to think of it, it's very much a bottle show on the station, and has everything going against it there, yet it's very alive scene to scene.

 

[Rad]

DS9 was a great series, and much darker than either TOS or TNG. I feel, however, that by the end of DS9, most viewers were "trekked out"... and then along came Voyager.

 

[BillJ]

DS9 was a great series, and much darker than either TOS or TNG.

I don't know. I think people see the bright colors and think TOS doesn't have dark subject matter. But it really is a dark, fucked up series much of the time. With a death toll in the billions.

 

[timtonruben359]

I don't think there is one solid reason why DS9 didn't pull in the same numbers as TNG. First off the TV landscape had changed and while TNG had little sci-fi competition in its early years, DS9 entered into a more crowded market. Syndication ratings had been falling steadily since TNG's debut (even TNG's numbers were starting to drop by the time DS9 came on the air) and there were more channels as more people got cable. There is no question DS9 had a rough beginning and it had a noticeably different tone and style than TNG which I think turned a lot of Trek fans off. People didn't like the space station setting and felt the show was slower and less action oriented. Producers started to address fan's concerns by the third season with the addition of the Defiant and then in season 4 by bringing in Worf and upping the action, but many fans who hadn't like DS9 when it came out just waited and stuck to Voyager. I've wondered if delaying the launch of Voyager by a year or more would have helped DS9's ratings?

I think running two Trek shows at the same time affected numbers, and like I said Trek's numbers had starting falling by the 5th years of TNG so interest in the franchise had clearly been waning for a while.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

This is just speculation on my part because I don't have numbers to back this up, but I feel like the viewership for DS9 has grown significantly over the years. It has a vocal, passionate fanbase online. While every Trek series has its devotees, I feel like DS9 is particularly beloved, at least on the internet.

 

[stardream]

This is just speculation on my part because I don't have numbers to back this up, but I feel like the viewership for DS9 has grown significantly over the years. It has a vocal, passionate fanbase online. While every Trek series has its devotees, I feel like DS9 is particularly beloved, at least on the internet.

I think so too, but then I think that fan opinion of all the franchise has warmed over the years. I know I have run into a lot of people who gave up on Voyager during its first two seasons only to come back later to find they liked it when Seven joined the crew. I'm even starting to see people revamp their original opinions of Enterprise.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

I think so too, but then I think that fan opinion of all the franchise has warmed over the years. I know I have run into a lot of people who gave up on Voyager during its first two seasons only to come back later to find they liked it when Seven joined the crew. I'm even starting to see people revamp their original opinions of Enterprise.

It's pretty encouraging to see people discovering Star Trek for the first time or rediscovering it. That's what I've been doing the past year or so -- watching all of Star Trek in order. I haven't seen but a handful of episodes of Voyager and maybe three episodes of DS9. Right now I'm in the last season of TNG, so I'm excited to watch the last two series that I am most unfamiliar with. Based on the opinions and analyses I've read on DS9, I'm most eager to get to that.

 

[Long Syntax]

It's pretty encouraging to see people discovering Star Trek for the first time or rediscovering it. That's what I've been doing the past year or so -- watching all of Star Trek in order. I haven't seen but a handful of episodes of Voyager and maybe three episodes of DS9. Right now I'm in the last season of TNG, so I'm excited to watch the last two series that I am most unfamiliar with. Based on the opinions and analyses I've read on DS9, I'm most eager to get to that.

Best of luck watching DS9 / Voyager. I think they're worthy additions to the ST universe.

 

[Noname Given]

DS9 took a long while to "find itself" to flog a cliche. Many of its good/bad early episodes weren't audience friendly.

Also TNG was quite novel when it first came out. It's FX were hitherto only seen (by me anyway) in the cinema. But by the time the show ended, there was a number of shows doing that and the FX novelty had worn off.

Even without watching an episode, going from the Enterprise to a grubby old space station is quite a climb down. So there's a disadvantage there in marketing this to new people even before one episode was watched.

The media landscape was changing meaning that if TNG had started a few years later it probably wouldn't have enjoyed as much success as it did.

ALL later Star Trek series (I'm talking TNG onward) were honestly mediocre to bad their first two Season (TNG particularly so IMO - if it wasn't that some core Star Trek were so happy to see Star trek in some form back on TV in 1987 the show probably wouldn't have gotten a Season 2 - and further Parampount had plans if Season 1 was it to just add that one season to it's TOS syndication package.)

 

[Rad]

ALL later Star Trek series (I'm talking TNG onward) were honestly mediocre to bad their first two Season (TNG particularly so IMO - if it wasn't that some core Star Trek were so happy to see Star trek in some form back on TV in 1987 the show probably wouldn't have gotten a Season 2 - and further Parampount had plans if Season 1 was it to just add that one season to it's TOS syndication package.)

"Voyager" lost me for several seasons when they used a small breed dog with some prosthetic attached to is as the plot device for one of the early episodes. We did not start watching it again until Kes was introduced to the airlock... er..,. um... series exit. It got much better (IMHO) once Jeri Ryan came on board as Seven.

 

[BillJ]

"Voyager" lost me for several seasons when they used a small breed dog with some prosthetic attached to is as the plot device for one of the early episodes.

"The Enemy Within" did the same thing. "Where No One Has Gone Before" redressed a pig as a targ.

Pretty sure there are other examples.

 

[Rad]

"The Enemy Within" did the same thing. "Where No One Has Gone Before" redressed a pig as a targ.

Pretty sure there are other examples.

Well, yeah! That was Roddenberry's budget! A Peking chow with a horn glued to it's forehead!

When you're 8 year's old, that was AWESOME! I remember trying to do the same (with very little success) to our dog!

 

[johnjm22]

I think the biggest problem is that DS9 started out bad, and lost a lot of viewers because of it.

 

[BillJ]

I think the biggest problem is that DS9 started out bad, and lost a lot of viewers because of it.

I personally didn't think it started out badly. The over focus on Klingons, Dominion and war is what killed it for me.

 

[Hey Missy]

The main complaints dating all the way back to January 1993 regarding DS9 are the fact that it's set on a space station rather than a starship, and that Sisko was mean to Picard in the pilot.
A lot of Trekkies still bring those points up 23 years later.

 

[DS9forever]

I think the biggest problem is that DS9 started out bad, and lost a lot of viewers because of it.

But didn't TNG start out worse?

 

[Trek Survivor]

I think the biggest problem is that DS9 started out bad, and lost a lot of viewers because of it.

Whaaat? I thought DS9 started just fine - it was the last two seasons that killed it for me.

I personally didn't think it started out badly. The over focus on Klingons, Dominion and war is what killed it for me.

Yes, this! I thought I was literally the only person who preferred the first several seasons... for me seasons 6-7 are a huge disappointment.

 

[Sybok Was Wrong]

DS9 didn't have as many viewers as TNG for 2 major irrefutable reasons:

1) TNG had a more appealing cast.

2) TNG had a more appealing setting.

It's very simple.

These 2 ingredients are vital to any television show. It has to be appealing.

DS9 was less appealing than TNG to the average/casual viewer. It didn't matter how good DS9 got later on because minds were already made up.

 

[DS9forever]

Gotta disagree there, DS9 was appealing to me as it wasn't the nice, safe setting of TNG.

 

[BillJ]

Gotta disagree there, DS9 was appealing to me as it wasn't the nice, safe setting of TNG.

I don't get how TNG was a nice, safe setting? They were facing some kind of major crisis every couple of weeks.