Why is DS9 so disliked....

[Kegek]

PKTrekGirl said:
For example, 8-4-7-2 wasn't really a troll, IMO. He was just very opinionated and arrogant. And was one who saw his opinion as the CORRECT opinion - not just one of many, equally valid opinions.

Oh yeah, him. I rememeber he gave me quite a verbal lashing because I criticized VOY when, apparently, there was some kind of ceasefire between DS9 and VOY fans... course, VOY was still on the air and that forum was a royal no-man's land. Memories... still, he was always a fun read, short temper notwithstanding.

 

[Malcom]

THAT is the ugliest avatar I've ever seen!

 

[Kegek]

Malcom said:
THAT is the ugliest avatar I've ever seen!

Hey, thanks! That's pretty much why I picked it - it's Wixiban, Neelix's shady friend, from the VOY S3 episode "Fair Trade". I like my avatar to be like me - ugly and happy.

But to get a tad back on topic... I think DS9 is really disliked for a variety of reasons, but among Star Trek fans mainly for its variations in the Trek formula: Arcs, war, corruption, character conflict, the station setting, whatever. Besides that, as many posters have noted, they simply felt it wasn't of good quality - but even that is connected to the first concern, I think. Mainly, however, the show's main problem wasn't being disliked - it was being ignored. I think Entertainment Weekly called it, when it ended, the best show nobody was watching... and that pretty much sums it up for me.

 

[Orac Zen]

PKTrekGirl said:
1) That both sides of an argument will receive equal treatment....and equal latitude, to the best of my ability; and
2) That if posters in a conversation where I have allowed latitude start getting personal or mean-spirited, I'll step in, just like I did in this case, and try to get EVERYONE to dial it back.

This is pretty much what I was trying to get at with what I posted. Niners and non-Niners alike will always get a fair go in here. But I also wanted to point out that the vast - vast - majority of the posters in here are far removed from some of the people who used to be here. I don't want the current group to be seen in the same light as people like Sokar and 8-4-7-2 because that would be extremely unfair. Likewise, there's no one left in the Voy forum who compares to Nebula1 or bod. No one's actually suggested that, but I don't want anyone getting the idea that there's any sort of comparison between then and now. Because, thankfully, there is no comparison.

In other words...we can discuss shows and our perceptions thereof without tarring each other with the brushes of past behaviours.

After all that, I think I'll go hang out in the bar thread for a while.

 

[JM1776]

PKTrekGirl said: However, in my view, the word 'rabid' is a word that people use when they are intending to piss others off.

I know that you weren't referring to all DS9 fans as 'rabid' ... but even if you are referring to some of them, I think it is unnecessary.

Of course it was unnecessary. I copped to that a number of posts ago, when I acknowledged that Orac Zen had taken the "prudent course."

Have I employed the word innumerable times with impunity since then? Are you beating the living crap out of a dead freakin' horse?

For the record: No and yes.

Another question: Was "rabid" more unnecessary than "too sophisticated," "more mature," "average Joe," "short attention spans" and the others seen in this thread? You've said "no," yet "rabid" is the word you won't let lie, and its use the part of the discussion you won't let die.

I think the term itself is inflammatory, regardless of who or how many you are referring to. That is why I don't like it.

To be frank, PKTrekGirl, at this point, for a variety of reasons, I'm not particularly concerned with what you like on a personal level. You're the moderator, and I acknowledge your authority. However, until and unless you explicitly forbid or ban something, I shall, with all due respect, use my own judgment when expressing my perspective. I thought [and think] the word appropriate in context, as an oblique response to previous postings.

Was it polite? Was it classy? By no means. Was it a measured response? Quite carefully, I assure you. Would I do it again? Well, tune in next week, same Trek time, same Trek channel.

The agenda with the use of that word - especially when used with some sort of vaguely defined group, is to lump people together and judge everyone for the actions of a few...

Now, I'm not saying that's what you are doing. I don't know your motives.

You've declared that you "don't know" my "motives," but yet can divine and define "the agenda with the use of that word."

You do see the inherent contradiction there, I trust, now that it's been pointed out? You're arguing both sides, PKTrekGirl.

This leaves EVERYONE in said group wondering if the poster is including THEM in that

'some'. And conveniently, leaves the moderators in the same predicament.

One might call that canny posting. One gets one's legitimate point across, whilst avoiding belated (though clearly not avoiding belabored) and partial retribution.

If the term doesn't apply, there's no reason to be offended, because it's off target and I'm simply firing blind. If it does apply, however ... there's still no reason to be offended, because what I've said is true ... and truth will out.

Now that I've made my position perfectly clear ... I'll take especial care before employing the word "rabid" here again. If, however, I deem it necessary in response to further snobbery, I shall dig it out, dust it off, and dial it in.

That's as far as I'm willing to go, after having been unjustly and repeatedly made the villain in this little melodrama, and having to read the unnecessarily perpetuated, repetitive and torturous explication of what you think on this matter, and why.

How about, at this point, showing a little ... ahem ... moderation? Or will it be necessary for you to deliver another dissertation simply to say the same thing yet again? Since my brief "works for me," which I think we all can agree was both inoffensive and a peace offering, I've had to endure two more posts from you (and another from Malcom), on the inappropriateness of the word "rabid."

In short: I ... get ... the ... point. Let ... it ... go.

 

[Neroon]

I think it would be wise for everyone to "let it go".


As to the series, one reason I feel that caused many folks to dislike it - mind you that's many of those, not all of those who disliked it - was that it was stationary and dark, whereas the previous incarnations moved about far more and had a more positive focus. Okay, so that's been mentioned a few times, but I really think those are the primary facets that caused people like I believe Majel herself to dislike the show. How she feels today, I cannot say.

 

[JM1776]

It has to be about tenor and tone, in my opinion. The production values were superlative ... the performances, for the most part, top-notch (though I genuinely thought Avery Brooks adequate at best) ... the writing crisp and clever ...

A pragmatist watching "In the Pale Moonlight" is almost certainly going to have a different take on the events therein than would an idealist or moralist, for example.

 

[Kegek]

JM1776 said:
A pragmatist watching "In the Pale Moonlight" is almost certainly going to have a different take on the events therein than would an idealist or moralist, for example.

True enough, but I think it was an interesting exploration of the boundaries between pragmatism and idealism. Sisko does immoral and pragmatic things, but for strictly idealistic reasons.

 

[JM1776]

Kegek said: True enough, but I think it was an interesting exploration of the boundaries between pragmatism and idealism. Sisko does immoral and pragmatic things, but for strictly idealistic reasons.

Well, that's another discussion entirely.

 

[Malcom]

I read an article once in Cinescape or something like that, discussing how arguments could be made that DS9 and Voyager were the two best treks ever.

The acting was better than the previous Treks, the characters were interesting and not as sterile as TNG or perfect as TOS, and they were not as cliche-ridden or heavy-handed as TOS.

It was an interesting article that made me respect DS9 and Voyager, even if I didn't always like them.

 

[Jonesy]

Navaros said:

Nebusj said:

Of course they're skeptical that the show is really Better Than You Thought: how often have you turned back to a show you disliked because a fan told you it was much better than you think? (Remember that a fan is, almost by definition, a person who loves something so much he will only reluctantly own up to its faults, at least in front of a non-fan.)

So, in trying to argue that the show is better than they thought, you're trying to argue against their own experience, and from a position in which your authority isn't compelling.

I've found that the majority of the time, DS9 fans are quite open to owning up to DS9's faults. :thumbsup:

Actually, in my experience, outside of this board and other DS9 boards, fans tend ("tend" is the operative word) to kind of protect their baby, mostly because IMO they have viewed it as the unfairly-treated redheaded stepchild of the franchise.

They might be very much willing to discuss the faults amongst other dedicated niners, but I tend to find that they take a much different stance whenever it is taken to task by people who, for whatever reason, don't care for it too much.

 

[Jonesy]

Nebusj said:
Well, what's to explain? Deep Space Nine got a fair start, but it had the bad fortune to put a fairly weak foot forward. The first season, with a few shining points, presented too many episodes that played like the stuff already wearing thin on Next Generation, and people concluded the show wasn't worth the investment in time or energy. Maybe it happened a bit later -- the show's ratings did drop every season -- but nevertheless, people who quit watching came to the conclusion the show wasn't good enough to be worth their interest.

^ I think that this tends to be the best explanation for why DS9 really wasn't a huge success. I think it had a rather bland and uninteresting first season (with the exception of "Duet", but that was near the end of the year) and I don't think that the second season was exactly all that thrilling either.

DS9 certainly built greatly upon those weak early seasons, but I think all of the rest of the reasons given for the lack of interest in DS9 ("too dark", "station-centric", ect.) is what continued to keep it from winning a new audience.