Why is DS9 400 behind all the other shows on Best shows list?
- Thread starter IronMaiden
- Start date
Best show =/= Most popular show
It was a show originally conceived as a thinking series where violence was done if it was truly necessary. Later seasons it fell down to dummyville where the violence increased and the stories were not sophisticated and predictable. I thought Enterprise was a better show.
I don't remember Vic being a Jimmy Buffett fan.
Enterprise was a good show, some people like it some not, still the question is why DS9 is behind 400 other shows.
No TV show is supposed to be a purely intellectual product, books are for that. I don’t think that violence was used extensively in DS9, it depicts a war after all. DS9 is too untypical for the average Trek fan – they expected a 5-year mission and parables but received a war and a dubious message. It changed the ST format too much and it deconstructed the ST mythos, this is hardly a way to attract the hardcore fandom. At the same time, DS9 is part of the ST franchise, which puts off the non-Trek audience. So DS9 falls into the no-man’s-land.
At some point, the audience became oversaturated with ST, several series were running concurrently or in a rapid succession. In the meantime, the show-biz introduced new approaches and topics, new generations came, they grew up with other shows. ST remained frozen in its timelessness and unwillingness to change and face the reality.
Contemporary TV viewers are segmented into small specialized audiences (narrowcasting), each audience votes for its show, so recent shows appear higher on the list. Enterprise was aired last so the collective memory about this show is fresher.
DS9 will drop even further, not because it is a bad show but because there is always something new, film industry is an ongoing process.
No TV show is supposed to be a purely intellectual product, books are for that. I don’t think that violence was used extensively in DS9, it depicts a war after all. DS9 is too untypical for the average Trek fan – they expected a 5-year mission and parables but received a war and a dubious message. It changed the ST format too much and it deconstructed the ST mythos, this is hardly a way to attract the hardcore fandom. At the same time, DS9 is part of the ST franchise, which puts off the non-Trek audience. So DS9 falls into the no-man’s-land.
At some point, the audience became oversaturated with ST, several series were running concurrently or in a rapid succession. In the meantime, the show-biz introduced new approaches and topics, new generations came, they grew up with other shows. ST remained frozen in its timelessness and unwillingness to change and face the reality.
Contemporary TV viewers are segmented into small specialized audiences (narrowcasting), each audience votes for its show, so recent shows appear higher on the list. Enterprise was aired last so the collective memory about this show is fresher.
DS9 will drop even further, not because it is a bad show but because there is always something new, film industry is an ongoing process.
I didn't vote either, but any show ranked 400 should not be considered in a category which has the title "Best" in it.
And anyone who does not care for or like DS9 anyway should post their cheap remarks somewhere else.
If DS9 wasn't a ""Star Trek" series, it would be a pretty much forgotten 90's series.
That's not a knock on its quality. It had excellent production values and was a well written show.
Really, it didn't have an attractive setting that viewers wanted to be each week. Not for the average, casual viewer. It didn't have a lead actor with the appeal or charasma of Patrick Stewart or William Shatner. Ķeep it simple is the key to a Trek series getting a big audience and the whole Bajorans plight/religion/Emmissary/ nerdy Ferengi presence, plus let's face it- unappealing cast that did not have one runaway character. It owed most of its early ratings to riding the wave of TNG popularity. It owes any Public consciousness in 2016 to being a Trek branded show.
Star Wars got all complicated with the prequels and the general public found it distasteful. Same with DS9.
That's not a knock on its quality. It had excellent production values and was a well written show.
Really, it didn't have an attractive setting that viewers wanted to be each week. Not for the average, casual viewer. It didn't have a lead actor with the appeal or charasma of Patrick Stewart or William Shatner. Ķeep it simple is the key to a Trek series getting a big audience and the whole Bajorans plight/religion/Emmissary/ nerdy Ferengi presence, plus let's face it- unappealing cast that did not have one runaway character. It owed most of its early ratings to riding the wave of TNG popularity. It owes any Public consciousness in 2016 to being a Trek branded show.
Star Wars got all complicated with the prequels and the general public found it distasteful. Same with DS9.
Indeed, DS9 started in the shadow of TNG and in the long run, the constant comparisons with TNG prevented many fans from appreciating it for what it was.
It seems to me that its affiliation with the Trek franchise has more of a negative effect on DS9 nowadays. The average TV viewer is positively horrified when they hear the words “Star Trek” and imagines hordes of sanctimonious zealots, wearing replicas of Starfleet uniforms in an attempt to make the world a better place. Which is sad because DS9 can offer so much to the sci-fi and even general audience. People simply have to get over this cheesy public image.
The recurring actors were better than some of the main cast, and the show tried to give different species their fair due and this resulted in many plotlines, it was not centered round one ship and one crew. I do agree that a TV show should be simple and gripping but not to the point of becoming naïve and sketchy.
Ironically, I was one of those fans who believed that Jar Jar Binks had killed Star Wars. After watching Episode 7, I was ready to hug and kiss Jar Jar Binks and now I just keep a frying pan close at hand specially for Mickey Mouse. That nasty rodent is worse than a Cardassian vole.
It seems to me that its affiliation with the Trek franchise has more of a negative effect on DS9 nowadays. The average TV viewer is positively horrified when they hear the words “Star Trek” and imagines hordes of sanctimonious zealots, wearing replicas of Starfleet uniforms in an attempt to make the world a better place. Which is sad because DS9 can offer so much to the sci-fi and even general audience. People simply have to get over this cheesy public image.
The recurring actors were better than some of the main cast, and the show tried to give different species their fair due and this resulted in many plotlines, it was not centered round one ship and one crew. I do agree that a TV show should be simple and gripping but not to the point of becoming naïve and sketchy.
Ironically, I was one of those fans who believed that Jar Jar Binks had killed Star Wars. After watching Episode 7, I was ready to hug and kiss Jar Jar Binks and now I just keep a frying pan close at hand specially for Mickey Mouse. That nasty rodent is worse than a Cardassian vole.
Similar threads
