Maybe you should actually watch DS9 before you make such ridiculous claims. 
Take TOS' first season out of the equation, and against the likes of B5 and/or Farscape, Star Trek in general is vastly overrated. That's not to say that I didn't enjoy a lot of it, I did, but it's not as pivotal as many people seem to think it is.
Re DS9's popularity, my observation has been that it's the one Trek series that non-Trekkers actually have any tolerance for.
As for stunting the growth, that's rich. Every other incarnation of Star Trek has utilised the big reset button, how much did that stunt any organic character growth? Sisko for example has a very clear character progression from the Emissary right through to What You Leave Behind, growing and developing all the way. Picard, is essentially exactly the same as he was in Encounter at Farpoint by the time we saw him in All Good Things. As for relationships, fcuk me, characters get married! That blew that whole Trek taboo out of the water. Much better to have Kirk or Riker nailing the female guest star of the week. Guess VD was a thing of the past in the 23rd/24th century. As for the lack of contribution to the Star Trek universe, let's see, in-depth development of the Bajorans, Cardassians, the Dominion, further development of the Klingons and Ferengi, as well as taking the Maquis through to a natural conclusion, and introduced Section31, no, obviously TNG gave us so much more. Seven years, and we got Q, The Borg, and a few Ferengi episodes, and then it was back to having the Romulans and Klingons turning up every now and then.
Inconsistent plotline. Brilliant, considering that outside of DS9, Star Trek rarely had anything stretching over multiple episodes. You get the occasional two-parter and then it's back to wrapping everything up inside 45 minutes. See that's the thing with DS9, it didn't need to wrap everything up nicely at the end of each episode, its nature allowed it to carry stories and arcs over greater durations. So there was a pause in the Dominion arc after The Search? Fcuk me, you mean they didn't go into an all-out war straight away?!
Heaven forbid they pause and consider their next move. Or are you suggesting that Sisko was all of a sudden responsible for co-ordinating a strategy against the Dominion? Fcuk Starfleet Command/Intelligence, let Benji do it all. 
The Klingons were forgotten after Way of the Warrior? They were? My God, who the fcuk was that masquerading as Klingons across the rest of the series?!
The Dominion war, more specifically the Breen, weren't the Dominion on the back foot when the Breen's sneak attack against Earth took place? The attack caused a pause in the Alliance campaign, which then gave the Dominion the time to go back onto the offensive.
B5 is somewhat overrated. The writing's good, the plotting is excellent, some of the actors are good, just about everything else is either servicable or less so. It's really the classic case of a series which was made good by one person - Joe Michael Straczynski. While Star Trek shows frequently have many fine collaborators at the top of their craft at all levels, B5 would have been near-unwatchable without his scripts.
Farscape is slightly overrated. Farscape's overration comes from a thoroughly annoying lead, a shallow main romantic plot, and frequently tasteless humour. Just about everything else in the show is so brilliant it compensates well, though. This show has a much stronger ensemble, both as a cast, but also in behind-the-scenes screw, writing staff, et cetera.
I love DS9, and thus disagree with patlandness's evaluation of the quality of the show... but him giving it as the reason for the show's ratings decline, and for the decline of the franchise as a whole, seems quite logical to me. He overstates the case (DS9 was combined with increasingly poor showings from VOY and ENT - had they turned around in a ratings-popular manner, a la FC briefly re-peaking the film franchise, something might have been maintained) but a lot of that seems essentially correct.
Farscape is slightly overrated. Farscape's overration comes from a thoroughly annoying lead, a shallow main romantic plot, and frequently tasteless humour. Just about everything else in the show is so brilliant it compensates well, though. This show has a much stronger ensemble, both as a cast, but also in behind-the-scenes screw, writing staff, et cetera.
I love DS9, and thus disagree with patlandness's evaluation of the quality of the show... but him giving it as the reason for the show's ratings decline, and for the decline of the franchise as a whole, seems quite logical to me. He overstates the case (DS9 was combined with increasingly poor showings from VOY and ENT - had they turned around in a ratings-popular manner, a la FC briefly re-peaking the film franchise, something might have been maintained) but a lot of that seems essentially correct.
^^ Let's not devalue Christopher Franke's scoring for the series, that was pretty darned good IMO. To lay the success as Joe's feet alone would be doing a slight disservice to the likes of Doug Netter and Stuart Copeland, all of whom played their respective parts.
The thing with B5 is that the universe was created from scratch, and largely as a vehicle for Joe to play out the story that he wanted to tell. With Star Trek, the universe is too often more important than any overall message that the series should be delivering. At the very least it's a case of them coming up with the universe first, and then thinking what they can do with it. B5's strength was always in the fact that the story, for all intents and purposes, was already there, which gave rise to the clarity of direction. The fact that something like Voyager, was largely made up as they went along, highlights the importance of having a clear sense of direction.
I hated Farscape the first time I saw it, didn't go back to it until the series had already finished. On second viewing, and sticking with it, the writing is very, very good, and IMO, Browder/Black's lead of the cast worked well.
I hesitate to make too many conclusions around the falling ratings in Star Trek. One thing to bear in mind however is that TNG, for a large proportion of its run had very little, or no natural competition. DS9 was perhaps a victim of TNG's success. Coupled with that, you had TNG's numbers already falling before DS9 was even on the scene, plus you had those that tuned out simply because it wasn't TNG, and there were already signs that interest in general in Star Trek was beginning to wane. TNG's final season wasn't particularly outstanding, and at a time when alternatives were beginning to pop up, people found other shows to keep their interest. To be fair though, DS9's format didn't really help it much. As great as it was for those that followed the show week to week, if you missed a few episodes I guess the temptation was there simply to give up rather than playing catch up.
The thing with B5 is that the universe was created from scratch, and largely as a vehicle for Joe to play out the story that he wanted to tell. With Star Trek, the universe is too often more important than any overall message that the series should be delivering. At the very least it's a case of them coming up with the universe first, and then thinking what they can do with it. B5's strength was always in the fact that the story, for all intents and purposes, was already there, which gave rise to the clarity of direction. The fact that something like Voyager, was largely made up as they went along, highlights the importance of having a clear sense of direction.
I hated Farscape the first time I saw it, didn't go back to it until the series had already finished. On second viewing, and sticking with it, the writing is very, very good, and IMO, Browder/Black's lead of the cast worked well.
I hesitate to make too many conclusions around the falling ratings in Star Trek. One thing to bear in mind however is that TNG, for a large proportion of its run had very little, or no natural competition. DS9 was perhaps a victim of TNG's success. Coupled with that, you had TNG's numbers already falling before DS9 was even on the scene, plus you had those that tuned out simply because it wasn't TNG, and there were already signs that interest in general in Star Trek was beginning to wane. TNG's final season wasn't particularly outstanding, and at a time when alternatives were beginning to pop up, people found other shows to keep their interest. To be fair though, DS9's format didn't really help it much. As great as it was for those that followed the show week to week, if you missed a few episodes I guess the temptation was there simply to give up rather than playing catch up.
Oh, no, lets.
Bland and generic synth without warmth or progression, at best it's good, but that's not that often.Oh, the show couldn't exist without lots of people working behind the scenes. Of this, I have no doubt. But it'd be pretty mediocre without those scripts - that is my point. Netter or Copeland couldn't have saved a bad show, JMS turned what from all rights, judging from the pilot, should have been a bad show and turned it into a good one.
God, me too. Loathed. Saw a few episodes at random, mostly mediocre ones like "Coup by Clam", dull ones like "The Locket", and awful ones like "Out of Their Minds". When I eventually saw the show the whole way through, my opinion changed - though not my judgement of the named episodes.
IMO... no. Browder's Crichton was at his least annoying when downplayed, but he was never likeable - at most tolerable. And when he was on a roll, he was far less than that. The most boorish, obnoxious, flat-out idiotic lead I've ever seen on a sci-fi show, period.
Black is good as Aeryn, but mainly when dealing with the Aeryn the Peacekeeper stuff. Aeryn the on-again, off-again, on-again girlfriend of Crichton stuff, less good.
But D'Argo, Chiana, Zhaan, Rygel, Pilot, Scorpius, Harvey... :thumbsup:
I believe the truth is a little of this, and a little of patlandness. I've learned one finds multiple equally valid origins that all converge to one result.
I thought it was a welcome change to Trek. The No Surrender, No Retreat suite and theme for Sleeping in Light were fantastic IMO.
No, that's fair. Joe's scripts were the most important element, but with Netter in particular, some of them at least would never have made it on to the screen to begin with.
It suffers from a poor first season IMO. A Human Reaction and Nerve/The Hidden Memory were very impressive, but there were far too many 'misses' in that first year for my liking. Season 2 picked things up, Season 3 was just brilliant, and Season 4 whilst not as good, was still pretty good. The PKW was fantastic too.
See, I actually liked Crichton, when he was at his most obnoxious
the fish out of water, eventually coming to terms with his new environment, all the time becoming more and more valuable to the ship in terms of ingenuity and leadership. All the while living up to his tag of 'pop culture boy' Scorpius was one of the best characters I can remember in recent years from any TV show.
I'd tend to agree to be fair, I think it would be more than a little naive to believe that it wasn't any number of different factors working into what was going on with the ratings.
It's not Trek, so I didn't judge it as Trek. I judged it as music, which is how I also judge Trek music. Trek's music is generally above Franke's par - though during much of the Berman era, it was excessively bland and restrained. Franke, at least, was not restrained.
First season wasn't all that bad. It was fun and weird, actually. Each season taken as a whole has its strengths and weaknesses. Season one is a 'weird thing happens every week!' show, with, IIRC, only one bad episode - "The Flax". Season two is both better than season one, as it has more character development, and it's also worse, as it has dumber, crasser humour. Best episode of the series - "The Way We Weren't" - and the worst - "Out of Their Minds" - come from this season.
Season three is a strongest overall, with consistent quality, frenetic plotting, and excellent use of Crais. Season four returns to season one's formula of 'something weird happens every week' and does so pretty well, then kicks into overdrive in the last few episodes. I did love the PKW, but I also would have been happy with the ending of season four... blowing them up into marbles is such a typically psychotic, out-of-left-field plot twist that would have been an IMHO satisfying ending (though wholly unintentional by the writing staff).
See, I actually liked Crichton, when he was at his most obnoxious
I respected him as useful - and essential - to the dynamic as the fish out of water and the guy who anchors the show in some kind of reality. That's not the same as liking, though.
Well, I'd say Harvey is one of the best TV characters. He's Scorpius but with Crichton's knowledge of pop culture, and his use of it is actually funny.
Amen.
Another of my unpopular opinions - I actually preferred the emotion-chip Data from "Generations" and "First Contact." I was disappointed when they jettisoned that plotline in "Insurrection" and "Nemesis."
"It's Mister Tricorder!" Priceless
"It's Mister Tricorder!" Priceless
For me, the first season duffers were That Old Black Magic, DNA Mad Scientist and Bone to be Wild. As outstanding as Season 3 was, it also had one of the worst episodes of the entire series IMO, Meltdown A minor blip though, Season 3 was just consistently brilliant.
Have to agree about Harvey, Scorpius/Harvey, love the character(s).
A minor blip though, Season 3 was just consistently brilliant. Have to agree about Harvey, Scorpius/Harvey, love the character(s).
1.) Cage was fine. There was no need to change it.
2.) Shat is better as Denny Crane than as Kirk.
3.) By the end of the shows, so little actual science fiction remained that it was more a technicality than content. Had Voyager and Enterprise been set on the ground (somehow) no one would think of them as scifis.
4.) Kes was more interesting than 7.
5.) DS9 bored me.
6.) I didn't like Phlox, he just seemed out of place.
7.) Neelix is the JarJar of Trek.
8.) Chekote is the most stereotypical character on Trek.
9.) EMH was annoying. And he can't sing.
10.) The fact that so many argue over continuity shows that the stories weren't all that compelling.
2.) Shat is better as Denny Crane than as Kirk.
3.) By the end of the shows, so little actual science fiction remained that it was more a technicality than content. Had Voyager and Enterprise been set on the ground (somehow) no one would think of them as scifis.
4.) Kes was more interesting than 7.
5.) DS9 bored me.
6.) I didn't like Phlox, he just seemed out of place.
7.) Neelix is the JarJar of Trek.
8.) Chekote is the most stereotypical character on Trek.
9.) EMH was annoying. And he can't sing.
10.) The fact that so many argue over continuity shows that the stories weren't all that compelling.
Bone to be Wild was a weird episode, in that it seemed really out of place between Nurve and Mind the Baby. It was nice to see the first of many appearences though from Browder's wife.
^
The odd placing is typical of Farscape. Its plots, and plot structure, is utterly bizarre - and engagingly so. I liked "Bone to be Wild" mainly because of the plot twists. First the obvious one: The monster isn't really that ugly thing, it's the nice girl. But the nice girl, while a monster, is a good person, and the ugly thing, while not a monster, is a malevolent person. And it's got a nice little macabre ending where, as Zhaan and Crichton muse on the cruelty of the universe, more or less sums up the extent to any philosophical grounding this largely flashy show had.
The only thing that bothered me was the ending. The monster was just about to go on a feeding frenzy, Scorpius holding her in his arms... and he's fine next time we see him, also this is never mentioned again. Hm.
The odd placing is typical of Farscape. Its plots, and plot structure, is utterly bizarre - and engagingly so. I liked "Bone to be Wild" mainly because of the plot twists. First the obvious one: The monster isn't really that ugly thing, it's the nice girl. But the nice girl, while a monster, is a good person, and the ugly thing, while not a monster, is a malevolent person. And it's got a nice little macabre ending where, as Zhaan and Crichton muse on the cruelty of the universe, more or less sums up the extent to any philosophical grounding this largely flashy show had.
The only thing that bothered me was the ending. The monster was just about to go on a feeding frenzy, Scorpius holding her in his arms... and he's fine next time we see him, also this is never mentioned again. Hm.
I'm a huge Farscape fan, and I actually like Chrichton especially when he was at his craziest. Although I must admit that I do like most of the other characters better. My favorites would have to be Rygel, D'Argo and Harvey. I like Bone to be Bad too, I thought the twists that thrown into it were pretty good. Sorry, guess we should probably get back to talking about Trek now
1. I never cared if stories contradicted throwaway lines as long as the story was good.
2. Similarly, while tech manuals are fun, I don't really care that ships often travel at the speed of the story rather than their technical top speed. (eg. ST V, Enterprise Pilot)
3. I liked Wesley Crusher. (I was his age when TNG came out and was nerdy too! Of course, I never got to fix a starship.)
4. I don't care that Voyager used the Borg until they weren't threatening any more.
5. Kate Mulgrew isn't sexy!!!!
6. Jennifer Lien is (even when she returned to the show and people griped that she wasn't the same weight)!!!
7. I don't really care for the way the Mirror Universe was handled on DS9. I did like it on Enterprise though! (As an aside, I think this is because DS9 lingered in the mirror universe too long, and it really is an absurd concept if you spend too much time pondering how that universe stays "parallel" to our own.)
Berman was good for Trek. While people complain that he killed Trek, approximately 25 seasons of trek and 4 feature films were created under his tenure. It's no WONDER that they were burning out towards the end!!!!
2. Similarly, while tech manuals are fun, I don't really care that ships often travel at the speed of the story rather than their technical top speed. (eg. ST V, Enterprise Pilot)
3. I liked Wesley Crusher. (I was his age when TNG came out and was nerdy too! Of course, I never got to fix a starship.)
4. I don't care that Voyager used the Borg until they weren't threatening any more.
5. Kate Mulgrew isn't sexy!!!!
6. Jennifer Lien is (even when she returned to the show and people griped that she wasn't the same weight)!!!
7. I don't really care for the way the Mirror Universe was handled on DS9. I did like it on Enterprise though! (As an aside, I think this is because DS9 lingered in the mirror universe too long, and it really is an absurd concept if you spend too much time pondering how that universe stays "parallel" to our own.)
Berman was good for Trek. While people complain that he killed Trek, approximately 25 seasons of trek and 4 feature films were created under his tenure. It's no WONDER that they were burning out towards the end!!!!
Re: Your most unpopular Trek opinions
How about this one:
I like supposing the ship NCC registry numbers are assigned by the Star Fleet Board Of Registry Or Whatever with no particular interest in being sequential, and in fact are partly assigned to obfuscate just how many ships there are or have been. I can't even get Timo to nibble on that bone of contention.
How about this one:
I like supposing the ship NCC registry numbers are assigned by the Star Fleet Board Of Registry Or Whatever with no particular interest in being sequential, and in fact are partly assigned to obfuscate just how many ships there are or have been. I can't even get Timo to nibble on that bone of contention.
Re: Your most unpopular Trek opinions
1. Generations was a fine movie.
2. DS9 should have been the last series, not because there was something particularly wrong with Voy and Ent, but because having so many shows just oversaturated the market.
3. While I hope Abrams does a good job on the upcoming movie, I would rather have seen another TNG film, even if this somewhat contradicts my "oversaturated" complaint in item 2. Of course, I mean a GOOD TNG movie; no singing, no treating Worf as comic relief, no reducing Crusher's role to two lines, no gags about Klingon pimples, floatation devices, firm breasts, etc.
1. Generations was a fine movie.
2. DS9 should have been the last series, not because there was something particularly wrong with Voy and Ent, but because having so many shows just oversaturated the market.
3. While I hope Abrams does a good job on the upcoming movie, I would rather have seen another TNG film, even if this somewhat contradicts my "oversaturated" complaint in item 2. Of course, I mean a GOOD TNG movie; no singing, no treating Worf as comic relief, no reducing Crusher's role to two lines, no gags about Klingon pimples, floatation devices, firm breasts, etc.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Re: Your most unpopular Trek opinions
TNG was MISmade by some people who worked on TOS. But they had help (if you want to call it that.)
DS9 was made better and better by people who actually remembered what TOS was about -- not a utopia, but about the possibility of something better and STRIVING, not just magic box tech.
TNG was MISmade by some people who worked on TOS. But they had help (if you want to call it that.)
DS9 was made better and better by people who actually remembered what TOS was about -- not a utopia, but about the possibility of something better and STRIVING, not just magic box tech.
Similar threads
