Why is DS9 the black sheep?
- Thread starter T'Baio
- Start date
DS9 is also my favorite.
I'm not sure why it would be considered the black sheep, maybe because it was so different from the traditional Trek formula that the other 4 shows used?
I'm not sure why it would be considered the black sheep, maybe because it was so different from the traditional Trek formula that the other 4 shows used?
Why is it the black sheep? I'm tempted to say because it centered on the black guy. Really, a great many white people who are not overtly racist--would swear up and down to not being racist--won't watch dramatic shows with black leads or appreciably black casts. It's not a conscious choice, they "just can't get into it." HBO's The Wire has been widely lauded as the best show ever (if you allow tv shows to share the crown, it is--its definitely a contender) for all four of its seasons and few people watch it. Which season did best? The second, which was centered around Polish dockworkers rather than African-Americans.
I can't speak for other people, but I can guess as to some reasons as to why DS9 wasn't popular.
The general public first of all doesn't even like Star Trek because there's the stigma attached to it that if you watch it you are a "Nerd". They don't even give it a chance. It took TOS 25 years to even become a household name, and only because some people praised the series for its solid storytelling and engaging ideas. TNG took like 15 years for it to gain popularity because of the same reasons.
DS9 may still get it's chance now that people have been warmed on Arc Style Television with all the 24's, Lost's, Heroes', etc. My personal opinion is that DS9 was too complex to offer anything to the general public that was already leery of watching Trek in the first place. Then you have a bunch of Trekkies who can't stand it because it doesn't follow the format of the previous series.
Personally I have a bunch of little reasons that all come and work together to annoy me to not watch this series (and I have seen most of it, but I can't get myself to enjoy it as a whole, only the sparing episode here and there)
I'll mention a couple of the biggest ones for me:
1. The decentralization of human beings as the main characters in the story. Basically it became the story of the "aliens'" plight with humans downplayed severly.
2. It didn't help that I find most Star Trek Aliens borderline ridiculous. At least in TOS and TNG most Aliens have a "one note" type of culture/personality which helps to make them believable Alien beings. DS9 however had the most "human" Aliens of any Trek series, and this seriously undermined their credibility to me (My mind can't accept aliens like Garak who is a completely 100% human personality but just happens to have a funny forehead
or Dukat who is basically another complex human in a costume)3. A series like TNG, while I admit in some points is very bland (I blame the writers for being airhead dipshits who can't properly write a good story without convenient interpersonal conflicts) had some excellent story telling, which human characters that I looked up to. Picard, Riker, Data, Crusher, and even Troi have qualities that I would love to have in myself. DS9 had only character that I liked, who was Bashir, everyone else was a stuck up little bunch of sissy bitches who threw temper tantrums at least ones every 30 seconds in every damn episode.
4. Odo basically helps the Alpha Quadrant for the sole reason that he's infatuated with Kira. So let me get this straight: If he hadn't had a good fuck with Kira's pussy, he would have turned on the people who have shown him friendship and respect all of his life? Give me a break
5. And don't even get me started on all the "lovingly eye staring" contests going on between every couple on the show. The only realistic couple were O'Brien and Keiko. And the only interesting relationship was Bashir and that genetically enhanced girl he cured.
Trust me I could continue with the rants, but at least you have an idea of why I personally didn't like the series, and a couple of my own guesses as to why others didn't enjoy it either.
I see your points on 4 & 5 (I always felt it was moronic in the extreme that Odo would find a humanoid attractive--almost as moronic as the idea that an emotionless android would harbor a residual crush on a woman who used him as a vibrator--and I got sick of the endless soap opera--still, I preferred that to the static non-flirtations between Riker & Troi and Picard & Crusher that passed for sexual tension on TNG) but I think you're way off on the rest of them. But at least you have reasons.
I don't really know. In any case, it's the only Star Trek show that I still regularly watch. It remains one of my favorite shows of all time.
The only friend of mine who likes Star Trek at all also believes DS9 to be the best (and according to her, the only worth watching) of the Star Trek shows. I did know someone in 9th grade who claimed it wasn't interesting because it was set on a station, not a starship, which is a pretty silly argument.
I would hope, though, that Sisko's ethnicity isn't the reason people kept away. Not just because that would be sad from a social point of view, but because Sisko is really awesome.
The only friend of mine who likes Star Trek at all also believes DS9 to be the best (and according to her, the only worth watching) of the Star Trek shows. I did know someone in 9th grade who claimed it wasn't interesting because it was set on a station, not a starship, which is a pretty silly argument.
I would hope, though, that Sisko's ethnicity isn't the reason people kept away. Not just because that would be sad from a social point of view, but because Sisko is really awesome.
My personal reasons are as follows.
1. The idea of it being based almost entirely on a space station meant all the action had to come to them, which made some of the action feel forced.
2. Im not big on religion human or otherwise so especially not an alien religion, there was just too much of the Bajoran church drama for me.
3. It didnt start off on the right foot and that set me off on the wrong tone, a Commander who didnt want to be there doesnt exactly inspire alot of excitement for the "adventure"
4. (This is the biggest) I hate the Ferengi, not because they are written to be hated but because they are so over the top rediculous they are absolutely boring no matter what.
Aside from "Little Green Men" which I thought was a very entertaining episode any time I saw a Ferengi in the first frame I tuned out.
Incredibly for all that I disliked about DS9 it had some of my favorite characters (Martok, Dukat, Bashir)
1. The idea of it being based almost entirely on a space station meant all the action had to come to them, which made some of the action feel forced.
2. Im not big on religion human or otherwise so especially not an alien religion, there was just too much of the Bajoran church drama for me.
3. It didnt start off on the right foot and that set me off on the wrong tone, a Commander who didnt want to be there doesnt exactly inspire alot of excitement for the "adventure"
4. (This is the biggest) I hate the Ferengi, not because they are written to be hated but because they are so over the top rediculous they are absolutely boring no matter what.
Aside from "Little Green Men" which I thought was a very entertaining episode any time I saw a Ferengi in the first frame I tuned out.
Incredibly for all that I disliked about DS9 it had some of my favorite characters (Martok, Dukat, Bashir)
I agree with a lot of this as well. I have a bunch of little things that annoyed me from TOS and TNG.
To give you some examples:
In TOS' "The Doomsday Machine", the captain from the other Constitution class ship (Matt something) takes command of the Enterprise, stepping on the crew in a most unrealistic fashion.
Also I neved understood how Kirk was such a womanizer, bagging practically all the ass he could get his hands on, yet I'm supposed to "feel" for how he fell in love with Edith Keeler in that "Guardian of Forever" episode, and it's supposed to be an emotional and memorable moment. Please
On the TNG side, it grated me how the Enterprise D is supposed to be this powerful Federation Starship, yet they keep getting their asses handed to them by almost every hostile species they encounter (usually saved in the nick of time by "diplomacy"
) At least have the Enterprise put up a damn fight, and not have the warp core breaching after two shots from an enemy LOL.The stuff with P/C and R/T I actually found realistic somewhat. Coworkers who respect each other but have romantic feelings would probably be afraid to act on them, lest their relationship fail miserably and then they are stuck on the same ship for another 10+ years. There was no need for casual sex even, since pretty much everyone can get their jollies on a holodeck.
Remember that "City" was an early episode, second half of the 1st season, and Kirk's "womanizing" (always oversold, anyway) was confined to an uneasy with flirtation with one of "Mudd's Women," an attempted rape of Yeoman Rand by his dark half in "the Enemy Within" and a complicated mutual toying with Lenore Karidian in "Conscience of the King." That the death of a beautiful, formidable woman of great intellect, vision and compassion should shake him deeply is hardly a stretch regardless of where it fell in the series--now Rayna Kapek from "Requiem for Methuselah"... .
As far as Matt Decker is concerned: he was mentally unhinged by the loss of his ship but he was also the most senior officer in the sector--senior even to Kirk. That situation is completely believable to me.
.As far as Matt Decker is concerned: he was mentally unhinged by the loss of his ship but he was also the most senior officer in the sector--senior even to Kirk. That situation is completely believable to me.
GodThingFormerly
A Different Kind of Asshole
GalaxyX said:
Also I neved understood how Kirk was such a womanizer, bagging practically all the ass he could get his hands on, yet I'm supposed to "feel" for how he fell in love with Edith Keeler in that "Guardian of Forever" episode, and it's supposed to be an emotional and memorable moment. Please
http://www.geocities.com/phineasbg/kirksex.html
TGT
See what I mean by "oversold"? Thanks, TGT--though I know we sharply disagree on DS9.
Allow me to add, Galaxy X, that, even if Kirk were such a womanizer, that does not make him incapable feeling real love and real grief. Even James Bond was shattered when he lost the women he loved, in both On Her Majesty's Secret Service and, more complicatedly, in Casino Royale. Have a heart, will ya?
Allow me to add, Galaxy X, that, even if Kirk were such a womanizer, that does not make him incapable feeling real love and real grief. Even James Bond was shattered when he lost the women he loved, in both On Her Majesty's Secret Service and, more complicatedly, in Casino Royale. Have a heart, will ya?
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
Brutal Strudel said:
Remember that "City" was an early episode, second half of the 1st season, and Kirk's "womanizing" (always oversold, anyway) was confined to an uneasy with flirtation with one of "Mudd's Women," an attempted rape of Yeoman Rand by his dark half in "the Enemy Within" and a complicated mutual toying with Lenore Karidian in "Conscience of the King." That the death of a beautiful, formidable woman of great intellect, vision and compassion should shake him deeply is hardly a stretch regardless of where it fell in the series--now Rayna Kapek from "Requiem for Methuselah"...
For the record vis a vis Kirk: you've left out Mirimanee ("Paradise Syndrome'), Ariel Shaw ("Court Martial"), Shanna the Drill Thrall ("Gamesters..."), Ruth ("Shore Leave"), the "little blonde Lab Tech" ("Where No Man..."), Carol Marcus (may be the aforementioned Lab Tech, "Wrath of Khan"), the girl who became the plague carrier (can't remember her name off hand, "Mark of Gideon"), and Antonia ("Generations") just off the top of my head.
As for the OT of the post, if nothing else, the PTB at Paramount (Berman in particular) never beleived in the show, and never gave it a chance to shine on it's own. Ron Moore spoke in an interview about how he was told by Berman point blank "You'll (DS9) NEVER be allowed to be the 'flagship show'!"
That MAY be why it was so good at least in part...because Berman was busy ruining Voyager and kept his mitts mostly OFF DS9.
Uh-uh. Most of those are after "City." And the blond lab tech and Ruth (from "Shore Leave") are ancient history. I though I made it pretty clear I was talking prior to "City," not the entire series. I guess I didn't. (Besides, Miri was just a "kid," Kirk's flirtation with her was little more than an uncle calling a favorite niece "princess.")
Bajorans/Cardassians=modern day Middle East. 'Nuff said. It was in the newspapers--didn't want to watch it on tv. Or I might have wanted to watch it on tv as a drama, but not as Sci Fi/Star Trek--TNG episode in which it's shown that warp drive is destroying the universe was a Jump the Shark moment for the exact same reason.
I think we've wandered off course here a little. The original point was around why Paramount treated the show as the black sheep of the family.
I don't know about Paramount, but I've always had the impression that the show was always viewed with a certain amount of envy by Berman and Braga. Although Berman is very vocal on the DS9 dvds about how proud he is of the show and how good it is, at the time he was focussed on Voyager along with Braga. DS9's success owes more to Mike Piller and Ira Behr than it does to Berman. Whilst DS9 wsa lauded by many critics, Voyager, was pretty much lambasted from most quarters.
There's also the fact that DS9 is so much different to any other incarnation of Star Trek that ultimately, I think too many people involved behind the scenes in the franchise were more than a little uncomfortable with it. It seemed to totally contradict the Star Trek formula; keep it light, no wars under any circumstances, no character conflict, and whatever you do, make sure that every story is wrapped up by the episode's close and the big reset button is pressed.
Ira Behr pretty much ditched all that and followed a model laid down by Babylon 5 which was airing at the same time.
I'm sure many people would argue that Berman 'oversaw' everything that DS9 was doing, but in truth Ira Behr was pretty much left to his own devices, especially after the first couple of seasons, which incidentally, is when the show became absolutely fantastic.
DS9 is a great show. I don't care if it's ostracized. The fact that it's different is what makes the show stand out for me. Paramount probably didn't like it because it didn't fit in with the traditional 'safe', 'family' Star Trek template. Star Trek's always been formulaic to a degree, and DS9 completely contradicted it.
I don't know about Paramount, but I've always had the impression that the show was always viewed with a certain amount of envy by Berman and Braga. Although Berman is very vocal on the DS9 dvds about how proud he is of the show and how good it is, at the time he was focussed on Voyager along with Braga. DS9's success owes more to Mike Piller and Ira Behr than it does to Berman. Whilst DS9 wsa lauded by many critics, Voyager, was pretty much lambasted from most quarters.
There's also the fact that DS9 is so much different to any other incarnation of Star Trek that ultimately, I think too many people involved behind the scenes in the franchise were more than a little uncomfortable with it. It seemed to totally contradict the Star Trek formula; keep it light, no wars under any circumstances, no character conflict, and whatever you do, make sure that every story is wrapped up by the episode's close and the big reset button is pressed.
Ira Behr pretty much ditched all that and followed a model laid down by Babylon 5 which was airing at the same time.
I'm sure many people would argue that Berman 'oversaw' everything that DS9 was doing, but in truth Ira Behr was pretty much left to his own devices, especially after the first couple of seasons, which incidentally, is when the show became absolutely fantastic.
DS9 is a great show. I don't care if it's ostracized. The fact that it's different is what makes the show stand out for me. Paramount probably didn't like it because it didn't fit in with the traditional 'safe', 'family' Star Trek template. Star Trek's always been formulaic to a degree, and DS9 completely contradicted it.
You've just answered the question--it's not Star Trek. Be proud of that, enjoy it--it was it was, and if you enjoyed it, great! I didn't. You are right on the mark--I don't sit down to watch tv that involves wars, there you have it. I teach about war one way or another on a lot of days when I teach history--I don't need it on my tv screen. I do in fact want light entertainment--to each his own. I get enough heavy stuff at work.
The powers that be treated it like it wasn't Star Trek because it wasn't. Nothing wrong with that--as the poster above says, celebrate the fact.
The powers that be treated it like it wasn't Star Trek because it wasn't. Nothing wrong with that--as the poster above says, celebrate the fact.
Sorry my friend not only was it Star Trek it was /good/ Star Trek /in my opinion/ 
. I found DS9 on par with the feel of pushing boundaries as the old trek.
The notion of 'they are on a station' the action had to come to them is silly. Many of the episodes were about the crew out and about. The stories were in depth and no character acte as just a general shadow of his race.
Yes it had awful episodes like "Profit and Lace" *shudders* but it also had moments that were on an almost cinematic level. The Seige at AR-558 was moving and as realistic as such a scene can be in scifi . Take it from a vet who has been under fire.
As any Vet will tell you, such a scene was hardly glorifing the battle. The story was much more than that...most of the stories involving the war was a lot deeper than the surface showed. Especially Nog's slow painful and although able to return to duty..still not being the same after losing his leg under fire. That is good writing...
I have always been a TOS fan and a fan who has liked all shows for the most part. But DS9 was a lot deeper than most people give it credit for.
I believe that is in someway the stigma that carries through at Paramount. The people there in marketing and /sales/ judge life through numbers and money and have decided that DS9 is unpopular...thus less creative and less deserving of attention as the more visiable Treks.
To be honest as time goes by DS9 seems to age better than the other Star Treks, I believe in the long run. It will be remembered as one of the better Star Treks.
*shrugs* Just my opinion
Vons
. I found DS9 on par with the feel of pushing boundaries as the old trek.The notion of 'they are on a station' the action had to come to them is silly. Many of the episodes were about the crew out and about. The stories were in depth and no character acte as just a general shadow of his race.
Yes it had awful episodes like "Profit and Lace" *shudders* but it also had moments that were on an almost cinematic level. The Seige at AR-558 was moving and as realistic as such a scene can be in scifi . Take it from a vet who has been under fire.
As any Vet will tell you, such a scene was hardly glorifing the battle. The story was much more than that...most of the stories involving the war was a lot deeper than the surface showed. Especially Nog's slow painful and although able to return to duty..still not being the same after losing his leg under fire. That is good writing...
I have always been a TOS fan and a fan who has liked all shows for the most part. But DS9 was a lot deeper than most people give it credit for.
I believe that is in someway the stigma that carries through at Paramount. The people there in marketing and /sales/ judge life through numbers and money and have decided that DS9 is unpopular...thus less creative and less deserving of attention as the more visiable Treks.
To be honest as time goes by DS9 seems to age better than the other Star Treks, I believe in the long run. It will be remembered as one of the better Star Treks.
*shrugs* Just my opinion
Vons
