Why is DS9 so disliked....

[Nebusj]

Navaros said:
"Their own experience" in that case may be vastly different from the experience received from DS9 as a whole series; which someone who tuned out prematurely would not be able to appreciate.

That might be, but it's pretty hard to convince a person who gave the show thirty hours to prove itself sufficiently entertaining to keep watching and found that it didn't meet their tastes that they'd start to like it if they just watched a hundred and forty hours more of it. It's even harder if they gave it a hundred hours before walking away.

I've tried durian several times, and I'm told by people who do not appear to be in the pay of durian growers that if I eat enough of it I'll come to appreciate its charms, but I'm not going to do that because my experience was bad enough that I don't believe the eventual payoff will be worth it. I say it smells like week-old dead fish and feels like spoiled Velveeta and you can keep it.

Back to the OP's question, and I've said this before and I'll say it again: main reason in my view is because DS9 is too sophisticated for average joe viewer. Generally speaking, on TV "stupid" sells. "Smart", "complex", or "sophisticated" does not.

Oh, can we please bury the ``fans are slans'' theory? Deep Space Nine is not a particularly sophisticated or complex show. It has much that's appealing about it, and to a reasonable extent it rewards paying closer attention, but the average viewer was not driven off because it was too scary compared to the Shiny Sparkly Things Channel.

Saying the show was too smart to be popular is a nice way for fans to praise their own intelligence, but all they're really justified in praising one another for is their common preference.

 

[Nebusj]

Ezri said:
What I like about DS9, is when they lost anyone in battle they had feelings of the lose. It was not like in the days of Kirk and company when Bones said "He is dead Jim" Think about it, what did Kirk say or do when he lost a red shirt. Nothing much, like ok big deal lost a red shirt. Ever see a wake for a lose of a red shirt? NOPE, I never did. With DS9 they had wakes and talk with nice words about the lose of a crewmember. That is why I like the show.

Well, you might hear something like this ...

KIRK: I know Kaplan's family. Now Mallory.
SPOCK: Jim, you couldn't have stopped any of this.
KIRK: His father helped me get into the academy.
SPOCK: Captain. In each case, this was unavoidable.
KIRK: I could've prevented all of it.
SPOCK: I don't see how.
KIRK: Walk in paradise ... among the green grass and flowers. I should've beamed up at the first sign of trouble.
SPOCK: You are under orders to investigate this planet and culture.
KIRK: I also have the option to disregard those orders if I consider them overly hazardous. This isn't that important a mission, Spock. Not worth the lives of three of my men. I drop my guard for a minute because I like the smell of growing things, and now three men are dead.

But yes, generally speaking, Kirk would not stop and hold a wake for the men killed, since typically the threat which killed them was still present and ready to kill more people, and it's kind of fashionable to worry about stopping that threat first.

 

[nx1701g]

Orac Zen said:
It isn't disliked on this board. Far from it, in fact.

That's true. It wins every favorite series poll.

 

[BigFoot]

^ Which is exactly as it should be.

 

[Deleted 2]

I liked the early seasons of DS9. They were imaginative and colourful. I thought 'the Dominion war' was a dull idea, and DS9's fluffy and bright depiction of warfare never rang true to me.
Also, the way in which the lead characters (and the Federation itself) are made accessories to genocide in the last season crossed a line for me that retro-actively made it difficult to feel sympathy for them.

 

[Ezri]

GLAD like a tribble eating ..... DS9 wins all the polls.

 

[new_mercury]

Everything seems to have a 'black sheep'. The bigger a 'franchise' gets the more critical people get. I no longer think DS9 is ST's black sheep. It seems that Ent is.

Neither deserve to be. All are different attempts at setting up one universe.
I always try not to have a favourite or least favourite. This is helped by the fact I can honestly say I love all 6 series.
If I was told to choose a favourite it would have to be DS9.
Alothugh as I said it is hard to do. It's like choosing ones favourite song from ones favourite band. Necessary but nigh on impossible.

 

[ChooseSlack]

Belar said:
Maybe because everyone considers it so "dark" ...

I've heard that, but I've never really seen it as a dark show like something like "Carnivale" is dark.

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.

Yes, but you could (well I can) say the same thing about Next Gen. Maybe because I started watching Next Gen after season 4 started, but I've gone back and seen almost every episode in order, and the first two seasons of Next Gen weren't that great IMO. There's some episodes that I really really liked, but compared to seasons 3-7, they weren't that interesting (same w/ DS9 also).

Ezri said:
of Kirk and company when Bones said "He is dead Jim" Think about it, what did Kirk say or do when he lost a red shirt. Nothing much, like ok big deal lost a red shirt.

That's just one reason why I thought TOS was just pure rubbish. It made no sense logically a lot of the time. Another example of this is whenever they'd run into a new planet on TOS, Kirk would go do, take his 1st officer, and Doctor, and someone else possibly. That way, if they all get killed on the planet, you'd have a lieutenant running the show. Rubbish.

 

[Nebusj]

ChooseSlack said:

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.

Yes, but you could (well I can) say the same thing about Next Gen. Maybe because I started watching Next Gen after season 4 started, but I've gone back and seen almost every episode in order, and the first two seasons of Next Gen weren't that great IMO. There's some episodes that I really really liked, but compared to seasons 3-7, they weren't that interesting (same w/ DS9 also).

For that matter, you could say the same thing about Voyager, which bled viewers about as fast as Deep Space Nine did, and you could say the same thing about Enterprise, which had the same problem. It may be that despite the example of The Next Generation it's actually a poor idea to start off with a couple of weak seasons and trust that the audience will somehow find a way to return when the show begins getting good. And it may be the better question is why did The Next Generation keep and grow its audience the first two years; it's obvious why it would grow in the third and fourth years.

Ezri said:
of Kirk and company when Bones said "He is dead Jim" Think about it, what did Kirk say or do when he lost a red shirt. Nothing much, like ok big deal lost a red shirt.

That's just one reason why I thought TOS was just pure rubbish. It made no sense logically a lot of the time. Another example of this is whenever they'd run into a new planet on TOS, Kirk would go do, take his 1st officer, and Doctor, and someone else possibly. That way, if they all get killed on the planet, you'd have a lieutenant running the show. Rubbish.

Yeah, that reckless heartless Kirk. He'd never do something like pause after the battle to console a widow. He was too busy boinking a bright green space babe.

Typically left in command, by the way, was Commander Scott, who seemed to have rather some competence in that field. Fortunately, no Trek show since has ever had someone as unnecessary as the lead actor getting the meaty scenes interacting with the danger of the week, so this rubbish has left us.

 

[Ezri]

Is it not strange that we go on and say DS9 is not disliked because the cast members show feeling of a fallen crewmember. And TOS that has no feelings of a fallen crewmember get a pat on the back. This is to weird.

 

[Photon]

I liked the early seasons of DS9. They were imaginative and colourful. I thought 'the Dominion war' was a dull idea, and DS9's fluffy and bright depiction of warfare never rang true to me.
Also, the way in which the lead characters (and the Federation itself) are made accessories to genocide in the last season crossed a line for me that retro-actively made it difficult to feel sympathy for them.

Eh? Have you seen AR-558. Its not fluff or bright. Nog looses leg, Fed soldiers killed

 

[indranee]

1) people with short attention spans

2) people with in-built prejudices over what a Trek Captain should look/sound like, whether there should be a ship in Trek etc

3) people who love happy and good and easy and all done in 45 minutes too much (like TNG)

4) people who have a problem with religion/darkness/war/un-resolved issues in Trek and its characters

4) people who have a problem with story arcs (before... now everyeffingone's doing story arcs and people are used to them and love 'em).

just my tuppence.

 

[exodus]

I think maybe because DS9 is anti-Trek.

Trek is about peace and tolerance, DS9 isn't.

DS9 is about the dark side of humanity. The part that Picard believes doesn't exist anymore. DS9 shows that how one flip of the coin, one bad situation can turn us back into part of the aggressive, violent people we are.

DS9 shows how fear made Starfleet create a ship like the Defiant. How doubt can turn a noble Captain into a killer. How prejudice can make a family man seek revenge. How an innocent doctor sworn to do no harm can pick up a phaser. It shows how the enemy of my enemy can be my friend. Also how anger & hate can be a useful tool for survival.

DS9 may not fit Roddenberry's dream completely but it's a more believable future many may not be willing to face.

 

[darthraidr]

one of the things that drew me to ds9 was that it was trek for trekkies/trekkers... you had to deal with consequences. that is something that trek rarely handles.

the typical trek experience, ship shows up, problem is presented, problem is solved, ship leaves. i'm not saying it's bad. ds9 was different. problem shows up, and you have to deal with it. maybe it goes away, maybe it sticks around for a while.

this is true in the first episode, picard shows up and instantly gets slapped with the reminder that he helped attack starfleet and kill innocents. it wasnt a 'trick' or holodeck, it was a real consequence to his real actions...

at that point i was sold. i wanted follow up to trek stories... other people, they dont care. that's fine.

i figure, if you like trek, and want a deeper look at the trek universe, ds9 is for you.

 

[Ezri]

It is true that DS9 does get into the dark side of Star Trek. It is not a show that is going to deal with flower power and talking about peace.

The part of the universe were DS9 is in the universe, it is not part of the federation. If you wanted peace, stay home on Earth and go to Risa 90 light years away to have a good time.

If DS9 was like Earth in the 24th century, it would be so boring. With DS9 it is conflict that can be settled without arm conflict. In time, all yo have left is arm conflict. It is a different place, and that made it enjoyable to watch.

 

[CaptJimboJones]

If anything, I think DS9 tends to be overrated around here.

I like the show, but frankly it suffers from the fact that there was a very similar show on at the same time - Babylon 5 - that tackled a lot of the same themes and ideas, and did it so much better. And on a third of the budget, at that.

DS9 just suffered in comparison. It's not too different from how Enterprise suffered compared to Firefly and BSG, both of which made Ent (which I also like) look stodgy and outdated in terms of its storytelling.

 

[Ezri]

I really do not see a contest between DS9 and Babylon 5. True, there was a number of similar parts both shows had at the time. With Babylon 5, they did have a smaller budget because they used the same stock of space station and ship weapons. With DS9, I have to say I cannot really recall the weapons of the station or the weapons of other ships was used more than once.

 

[Brolan]

When it was first on I didn't like it because it wasn't the traditional Trek (one ship out exploring). Now that's the reason I DO like it.

Traditional Trek Fatigue (TTF) has set in for me.

 

[Deleted 2]

Photon said:

I liked the early seasons of DS9. They were imaginative and colourful. I thought 'the Dominion war' was a dull idea, and DS9's fluffy and bright depiction of warfare never rang true to me.
Also, the way in which the lead characters (and the Federation itself) are made accessories to genocide in the last season crossed a line for me that retro-actively made it difficult to feel sympathy for them.

Eh? Have you seen AR-558. Its not fluff or bright. Nog looses leg, Fed soldiers killed

And that would've made a difference if it hadn't been the only episode of its kind. The rest of the war seems to be spent playing Biggles with the Jem'Hadar, or hanging out in the holosuite with that lame nightclub singer.

 

[exodus]

CaptJimboJones said:
If anything, I think DS9 tends to be overrated around here.

I like the show, but frankly it suffers from the fact that there was a very similar show on at the same time - Babylon 5 - that tackled a lot of the same themes and ideas, and did it so much better. And on a third of the budget, at that.

DS9 just suffered in comparison. It's not too different from how Enterprise suffered compared to Firefly and BSG, both of which made Ent (which I also like) look stodgy and outdated in terms of its storytelling.

Maybe but I know for me personally, I'd rather watch a versatile actor like J.G. Hertzler over Billy Mumy anyday.

Until, you see Hertzler, Shimerman & Brooks do Shakespeare just from memory, then you understand the top caliber actors Trek used to pull in. More than half of DS9 first & secondary cast can run rings around B5's as far as credible acting.