Why is DS9 so disliked....

[DarKush]

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from how Enterprise suffered compared to Firefly and BSG, both of which made Ent (which I also like) look stodgy and outdated in terms of its storytelling.

I can only agree with you in the sense that being a "Star Trek" show straitjacketed DS9 from really getting darker, grittier, or showing the kind of human frailty that B5 did. However, DS9 came pretty close, and it did have better production values. I also think the Dominion War was handled better than the Shadow War, which were the two biggest conflicts for each series.

But I do agree with your comments about ENT. However, I think ENT suffered also because it came in the age of drama, with more hard-hitting, edgier stuff even on network TV. ENT played it too safe, and even though I enjoyed the Xindi arc, compared to new BSG, it looked like a cartoon, with the Xindi in their day-glo outfits and the Snidley Whiplash reptilian Dolim. ENT wasn't contemporary enough, and their attempts to make it up to date were either exploitative-T'Pol or too late-the "Stigma" ep.

Now, the reasons I feel that DS9 was so disliked.

-It came after the more beloved TNG. Similar to how many TOS fans didn't like TNG, I think some TNG fans didn't care for DS9, and some never warmed to it.

-The setting. I think many fans just couldn't imagine a Trek show that didn't involve traveling on a space ship and never gave DS9 a chance because of that. For some reason, the idea that interesting things wouldn't or couldn't happen on a space station seemed beyond them.

-The characters. I think they were way more combative than the TNG get along gang. It might've been a shock to the system. Though I found it refreshing that Sisko was a person who didn't at first want to be in command of DS9. It was more realistic to me, the things he was grappling with.

-The first two seasons were pretty slow going. I don't think DS9 really started gelling until the end of the second season. By then some people had already turned to other things.

-The show's 'dark' reputation. Many people see the Trek universe as more utopian than it was potrayed on DS9, and I think because of that they overrate DS9's darkness. I don't think it was any darker than TNG, with Picard's torture, Picard's assimilation, Troi's mind rape, Worf killing Duras in cold blood, etc., etc. I do think DS9 went into more depth with 'darker' issues like war, religious fanaticism, prejudice, terrorism, etc. due to it being a more stationary show.


-Sisko. I wonder if the show being headed by an African-American might've turned some people off. Perhaps they felt they couldn't relate to Sisko as well as others. For example, there have been studies done that show when black people are on a magazine cover it usually sells less. I wonder if some latent bias might've been present.

 

[CaptJimboJones]

exodus said:

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.

I totally agree that Hertzler and Shimerman are excellent actors.

Brooks however ... I know some people like him, but I always thought he was one of the worst actors ever to grace a Trek production. His hammy, Shatneresque performance was a major problem with the show, IMO.

 

[EnterpriseF]

Wasn't "The Vistor" voted the best written trek episode about 10 years ago? IMO DS9 can go toe to toe with BSG.

 

[stj]

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

I can only speak for myself. What was wrong with DS9? Too many Klingons, too many Ferengi, too many Prophets and a bungled space war. Modern Klingons are stupid. Ferengi aren't funny. Prophets are silly. The very concept of space war gets less and less feasible every time I see it. But I quite enjoyed some DS9 that didn't have those flaws. (And, I didn't much care for Terry Farrell, either on Trek or Becker.)

But the siege episode is the one that starts with the enemy attacks and turns out to be holograms, right? The enemy set up a holodeck on a battlefield. Then they only used it to draw fire, instead of masking an overwhelming assault on the Feds. I burst out laughing and turned it off. Like beauty, dark is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Trekwatcher]

Disliked-hardly. Beloved by most Star Trek fans-no.

I watched (and taped) every episode of DS9 and had a love-hate relationship with the show. When it was good, it was REALLY good (Duet, Trials and Tribble-ations, In The Pale Moonlight, etc) but at times the bajoran prophet mumbo jumbo was just overwhelming to me, and it seems that that poor horse just got beat to death. It was just not interesting to me and it was too far afield from what I had come to look for in Star Trek. Plus, the Klingons were way overused to the point of tedium.

My brother and father, both Star Trek fans for 40 years, gave up on DS9 midway through the series, which shocked me.

So, the show is not generally disliked, but it really stands apart from much of the rest of Star Trek in tone and message. People wanted one thing and the show was another. Not a bad thing, but not what many had expected or hoped for.

 

[exodus]

CaptJimboJones said:

exodus said:

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.

I totally agree that Hertzler and Shimerman are excellent actors.

Brooks however ... I know some people like him, but I always thought he was one of the worst actors ever to grace a Trek production. His hammy, Shatneresque performance was a major problem with the show, IMO.

Believed it or not, Brooks played Sisko exactly as the character online stated.

Sisko was a man that was supposed to be emotional. He was passionate and aggressive. Plus, Sisko had major problems. He had to deal with one half of a people that saw him as the second coming, while the other half thought he was the Devil. He had to deal with the Maquis and still keep peace with the Cardies. He had half a crew that questioned his orders and authority. A son to raise on a bobytrapped station. Qurak & Garak.....this is all before the war. Sisko had allot on his plate, can you blame him for being on the verge all the time?

Ira wanted that to come across to the viewer. That at any moment, Sisko might just actually have a breakdown. Why do you think he loved the Defiant so much? Best way to relive that type of stress is to blow shit up!

 

[Leroy]

It seems disliked because people bailed after the first season that's also when the ratings decline for Trek in general started. Most people I encounter that have an interest in Science Fiction might say "I heard I stopped watching when it got good" so it gets a bad rep in that regard as for Voyager or Enterprise most probably have never heard of them.

 

[Trubinator]

I'm not a big fan of DS9 and I have a few reasons why some people might be turned off by it.

-the characters were bland and uninteresting (particularly Sisko)
-problems came to the station rather than a ship coming to the problems
-it could never quite decide if it wanted to be a standalone how like Trek or a serial like Babylon 5

 

[Anna Yolei]

I've come across tons of people who only slagged off the show simply because of the setting, no joke.

Aside from that, DS9, I think, suffered from being sandwiched between the ever so popular TNG and over-exposed (and under deserving, IMO) Voyager. DS9 was on the air with no other Trek competition for a few scant months in '94. That and the first season was boring as all hell. It didn't even have laughably bad but memorable episodes like TNG did, which would have been preferable to flat-out mediocrity. It definatly got better pretty quickly, but I could see how someone who wanted an excuse to hate this show and whine OH NOES DIZ IZNT TNG SO ITS T3H 5UXXOZ was given one. :?

 

[o'brien's scotch]

People dislike DS9?

In all seriousness, it is my favorite show of all time. I think that it is the best written, produced and acted Star Trek show ever. I watched a couple episodes from season four the other day and was reminded how much I love it.

 

[Salinga]

Well, I find DS9 entertaining (watched the whole series on TV), but not inspiring and I don't care for the characters that much. I take nothing from DS9 into my everydays life. I watched it only for the entertainment.

I prefer TNG because its idealistic display of the future is inspiring and I care for the characters. From TNG I take something with me in my everydays life. I can say that its overall vision of the future is something that I hold dear. I love TNG just BECAUSE it's unrealistic. If I want to see realistic conflict I switch on the news or just watch mankind. DS9 packed it into entertaining stories - but that's it.

 

[mr.peany]

I hated DS9 when it first started. It wasnt the Trek that i wanted, found it slow and plodding, and as a result didnt give it a second chance. Now that im older and had the oppurtunity to catch it on DVD i began to realise what i had been missing. It will never be my favourite Trek (that title belongs to TNG), but I find it to be one of the best written and acted dramas that ive ever had the fortune to watch.

 

[Chris_Moderato]

I watched the first couple episodes of DS9, found it boring and the acting over-the-top, and passed. Now, some 14 years later, I've started at episode 1, and I've decided I'm going to watch it all the way through. I did the same with Enterprise, another show I thought stunk after the first couple, and I fell in love with it.

When do the arcs start?

 

[J47]

Re: Why is DS9 so disliked.... *DELETED*

Post deleted by J47

 

[Vulcanian]

Notice how TNG fans also think there show is disliked too much

 

[J47]

I've really come to the conclusion that DS9 just isn't as unpopular as it's perceived to be. Sure, it's a love it or leave it kind of show, but it really seems to me that its apparent lack of popularity is based on an illusion that's been perpetuated by the show's execs since its inception. I'm not about to argue it's more popular than TOS or TNG, but everything I've seen indicates that it's certainly more popular than the oft-derided Voyager and Enterprise. Third out of five doesn't make it the most disliked by any means.

 

[Warped9]

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

I never understood it either. Yeah, maybe it's darker than TNG (not that hard, when you consider the lightness of some of it), but it's not THAT dark.

It's only "dark" mostly in terms of lighting. Otherwise it's not that dark at all.

I know a lot of folks were turned off by the idea that the characters supposedly went nowehere and were stuck on the station. I don't think that's a fair or educated perspective.

I drifted away from the show because I grew to dislike the overall writing style. It got to the point that it really grated on my nerves. It didn't seem to start out that way, but by third season it was so much like the writing style of TNG's 4th to 7th seasons which I also disliked. And then they continued with similar writing style into VOY and ENT.

The characters rarely acted in what I thought was a convincing manner and they rarely spoke convincingly either. It bugged me to know end and still does.

I also think they dragged out the war story waaay too bloody long. And in the end it didn't even feel like a Star Trek series. It became just another average sci-fi show.

 

[Camren]

Some viewers may have given up on the show after the largely awful first 2 seasons. I did, at first. Then a few years later I tuned in again, to watch some episodes from the latter seasons, and ended up loving it. I still wouldn't watch most episodes from the first 2 seasons, they were largely poor, but it really improved enormously starting from season 3. Episodes like 'the die is cast' blew me away, never seen anything like it in Trek before, and soon I was hooked!

 

[WeAreTheBorg]

IT broke the Trek formula and many Trekkie's find that heretical.

 

[o'brien's scotch]

Camren said:
Some viewers may have given up on the show after the largely awful first 2 seasons. I did, at first. Then a few years later I tuned in again, to watch some episodes from the latter seasons, and ended up loving it. I still wouldn't watch most episodes from the first 2 seasons, they were largely poor, but it really improved enormously starting from season 3. Episodes like 'the die is cast' blew me away, never seen anything like it in Trek before, and soon I was hooked!

I think that season two was pretty darn solid, for the most part.