PDA

View Full Version : Why is Star Trek DS9 virtually ignored?



banquo's_bumble_puppy
2008-Jan-04, 05:41 PM
Does anyone else think that DS9 is unfairly represented in syndication/re-runs on the science fiction networks? I hardly ever see it anymore. Why is this?

NEOWatcher
2008-Jan-04, 05:52 PM
Does anyone else think that DS9 is unfairly represented in syndication/re-runs on the science fiction networks?
No...

I hardly ever see it anymore. Why is this?
Well here's my guesses.

Because it depends on the timing, the syndication and what is currently being sold (dvd).
I'm not sure who owns what, but Spike has been having the 3 middle series on thier roster. Although they seem to be cycling through which ones they are showing.
They originally had a very heavy dose of TNG, then they had around a year or two of heavy DS9 (2-3 episodes a day)
Now they are doing VOY. And it seems to have started about the time that the first season came out on DVD.
The starts also seem to be seperated by a similar time-frame as the originals, so maybe the start of syndication has some direct correlation to the start of each of the series.

vonmazur
2008-Jan-04, 05:54 PM
IMHO: Dark and Scary, too involuted and mostly annoying episodes, other than Quark at Roswell, and Worf as Willie Mays, what was the point of this show?? (which was not in "Deep Space" as it was orbiting Bejar, unless that was the idea, ie: Bejar is in deep space compared to Earth....)

Dale in Ala

Moose
2008-Jan-04, 06:12 PM
IMHO: Dark and Scary, too involuted and mostly annoying episodes, other than Quark at Roswell, and Worf as Willie Mays, what was the point of this show?? (which was not in "Deep Space" as it was orbiting Bejar, unless that was the idea, ie: Bejar is in deep space compared to Earth....)

"Tarak Nor" orbited Bajor. In the pilot, shortly after the Federation took over the station, they discovered the wormhole and moved the station there. The station is no longer in orbit of the planet. It may, however, still be in orbit of Bajor's star (the station is usually depicted as sunlit) gamely matching the (apparent) orbit of the wormhole, at least closely enough to keep station. I don't think they went out of their way to say where the wormhole was, exactly, but they did have to put the station into warp for a short while.

So for the purposes of naming the show, DS9 fits just fine. What doesn't fit is that the feds named the station before the need for moving it was apparent.

The alternative explanation is that Bajor wasn't part of the Federation itself (but was part of its sphere of influence). Deep Space may indicate the political situation of the station's location rather than a physical location.

banquo's_bumble_puppy
2008-Jan-04, 06:16 PM
the station went to warp? really?

banquo's_bumble_puppy
2008-Jan-04, 06:17 PM
IMHO: Dark and Scary, too involuted and mostly annoying episodes, other than Quark at Roswell, and Worf as Willie Mays, what was the point of this show?? (which was not in "Deep Space" as it was orbiting Bejar, unless that was the idea, ie: Bejar is in deep space compared to Earth....)

Dale in Ala

I take dark and scary anyday over the pablum of Voyager....

NEOWatcher
2008-Jan-04, 06:28 PM
... but they did have to put the station into warp for a short while.
I thought it was thrusters, and was just made lighter with a warp field... I could be wrong.

So for the purposes of naming the show, DS9 fits just fine. What doesn't fit is that the feds named the station before the need for moving it was apparent.
Well, there were deep space stations in TNG, but I don't remember them being near a planet or not.
I think it was just Deep Space because they served as outposts for deep space missions because of their distance, not because they are in deep space. (What exactly would deep space be in the ST world anyway?)

Doodler
2008-Jan-04, 06:33 PM
the station went to warp? really?

Impulse...

Jason
2008-Jan-04, 06:35 PM
I believe they used some treknology trick to reduce the mass of the station enough to use its regular thrusters to move it to the position of the wormhole, which if I recall correctly is in an asteroid belt circling Bajor.

NEOWatcher
2008-Jan-04, 07:07 PM
I believe they used some treknology trick to reduce the mass of the station enough to use its regular thrusters to move it to the position of the wormhole, which if I recall correctly is in an asteroid belt circling Bajor.
Here: memory alpha (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Emissary_(episode)) has the details.


Once Kira realizes what Sisko and Dax discovered, she recognizes its tremendous importance and orders the entire DS9 space station to be moved to the mouth of the newly-found wormhole. With only six functional maneuvering thrusters, Dax suggests they lower the inertial mass of the station with the deflector array; O'Brien begins work on this endeavor


And; they have discussions about other DS stations here (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Category:Space_stations).
They seem to be more on the "border" of federation space rather than actual deep space.

Maksutov
2008-Jan-04, 09:25 PM
What's DS9? Somewhere between DS8 and DS10?

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/566/iconwink6tn.gif

ToSeek
2008-Jan-04, 09:29 PM
I take dark and scary anyday over the pablum of Voyager....

Yes, I was thinking, "And that's why I liked it."

Noclevername
2008-Jan-04, 10:10 PM
It's in regular syndication, Spike channel, every weekday. I don't know where the idea that it was ignored came from.

Alasdhair
2008-Jan-04, 10:53 PM
Maybe it's the "To boldly stay where everyone else has stayed before" thing?

Swift
2008-Jan-04, 11:11 PM
Maybe it's the "To boldly stay where everyone else has stayed before" thing?
IIRC, DS9 was deliberately very different than ST:OS and STNG - they weren't going all over the place, it was supposed to be darker and more character oriented, less action/adventure and problem of the episode, and more story-arc and politics. Babylon 5 and DS9 both came out around the same time and I suspect that this wasn't completely a coincidence.

And I like all of that about it. Sure, it had plenty of bad moments too, but there is a lot I liked about it. I thought Benjamin Sisko was a great character, with lots of faults and a dark side, and a great contrast to both Kirk and Picard. And Nana Visitor was hot.

I also suspect that all of that is why it was not as popular as other Star Treks. I hate to say it, but a lot of SF and ST fans like action/adventure type stuff, and not the darkly political.

Jason
2008-Jan-04, 11:14 PM
Too many Ferengi episodes.

novaderrik
2008-Jan-04, 11:58 PM
i never saw the entire first episode- and i missed the last episode due to a power outage, and never saw it in re-runs.... but i've seen pretty much all the episodes in between.
i never knew the station had a deflector dish.. let me guess how they used it to move the station -the reversed the polarity to create a quantum fluctuation in the space/time continuum, thius emitting a lot of tachyon particles, which lowered the mass of the station...

Delvo
2008-Jan-05, 12:12 AM
Whence comes the idea that it's "less popular" than the others? Viewership has gone down for each one, but DS9 was in the middle of that slope, not the bottom.

Swift
2008-Jan-05, 04:37 AM
.. let me guess how they used it to move the station -the reversed the polarity to create a quantum fluctuation in the space/time continuum, thius emitting a lot of tachyon particles, which lowered the mass of the station...
Pretty close, I think there was a flux inverter in there too and a lot of swapping of isolinear chips.

DaveC426913
2008-Jan-05, 05:04 AM
Maybe it's the "To boldly stay where everyone else has stayed before" thing?:lol:

Occam
2008-Jan-05, 10:40 AM
1/ Because it was just a crass soap opera that cashed in on the Star Trek name.
2/ That the alleged lead, Sisko, came across as a po-faced, prissy pontificator.
3/ It was a poor imitation of Babylon 5
4/ The Ferengi are possibly the worst "aliens" in the ST universe, being nothing more than multi-layered cliches.

All just my opinion, of course but totally correct nonetheless :D

vonmazur
2008-Jan-05, 07:18 PM
1/ Because it was just a crass soap opera that cashed in on the Star Trek name.
2/ That the alleged lead, Sisko, came across as a po-faced, prissy pontificator.
3/ It was a poor imitation of Babylon 5
4/ The Ferengi are possibly the worst "aliens" in the ST universe, being nothing more than multi-layered cliches.

All just my opinion, of course but totally correct nonetheless :D

Stimmt!

Dale

weatherc
2008-Jan-05, 08:41 PM
1/ Because it was just a crass soap opera that cashed in on the Star Trek name.
2/ That the alleged lead, Sisko, came across as a po-faced, prissy pontificator.
3/ It was a poor imitation of Babylon 5
4/ The Ferengi are possibly the worst "aliens" in the ST universe, being nothing more than multi-layered cliches.

All just my opinion, of course but totally correct nonetheless :DMay I also add:

5/ It was mind-numbingly dull

Let me also add that while I don't need non-stop action and I enjoy some shows with political intrigue, nothing about DS9 could get me interested in the show. I think the writing was just plain boring and a bad attempt at writing something more adult that failed.

novaderrik
2008-Jan-05, 11:52 PM
DS9 was good when they got into season long (and even multi season) story arcs. which i think was the whole point of the show- to illustrate that the Federation isn't this perfect utopia that TNG kind of tended to make it out to be up until the last couple of seasons.
which was kind of like the way TNG played out- it was kind of trudging along for the first couple of seasons until they started getting into Klingon politics (which all seemed to revolve around Worf and his family) and the Borg threat.

Noclevername
2008-Jan-06, 01:56 AM
B5 did political intrigue right. No one person knew everything that was happening, we got a sense of what the public and the media were being shown, and the "bad guys" had realistic motivations beyond being eeeeeeevil. And they made it personal. It affected real people's lives when a conflict occurred, or a law was changed. DS9 just didn't have the depth or character growth to support it.

Dave Mitsky
2008-Jan-06, 06:08 AM
I take dark and scary anyday over the pablum of Voyager....

I heartily concur.

Dave Mitsky

JustAFriend
2008-Jan-07, 01:29 AM
Voyager and Enterprise were definitely horrible.

I think DS9 started heading downhill when they concentrated too much on religion; I think it turned viewers off to have it continually rammed down their throats.

Definitely had some great episodes in there tho...

ravens_cry
2008-Jan-08, 03:07 AM
The first Star Trek I ever saw was TNG, and I fell for Data, his cool rationalism, combined with his supreme child like curiosity, really inspired me. If I ever get to meet the actor who played him, I would like to thank him for creating (along with the writers) a character that really helped me look at the universe through the eyes of a curious and inquisitive child, and never to take things at face value. ,
I have grown to be fond of DS9's darker, more imperfect federation image. I think there were a few good ferengi episodes, though for a while they drove me nuts. Nog, near the end became in my view, one of the greats. DS9 was star treks best portrayal of war, not the little skirmishes between captains, but war. I was only 15, but I though the love between Odo and Narise was the sweetest thing ever.
Voyager, I like a lot individual episodes, and I love the Doctor, but the whole thing felt like a whole bunch of mish mash. It had a great opportunity, but the mostly wasted it. we got a lot of, captain does something, but now in moral quandary, help innocents or oppressive government, she frowns, paces, and drowns her head in a cup of coffee till seven and the twins come bouncing in to remind her that she rescued her from the evil borg, so captain Jainway reminded of this, rescues innocents. you would think after the fifth time it happened Jainway would remember.

Jason
2008-Jan-08, 05:04 PM
I'm an original series grognard myself, and I like some things about all of the incarnations of Trek.

Doodler
2008-Jan-08, 10:01 PM
B5 did political intrigue right. No one person knew everything that was happening, we got a sense of what the public and the media were being shown, and the "bad guys" had realistic motivations beyond being eeeeeeevil. And they made it personal. It affected real people's lives when a conflict occurred, or a law was changed. DS9 just didn't have the depth or character growth to support it.

DS9 was a reasonable attempt to break out of Roddenberry's absolute law against character development. I read some of the background on the early seasons of TNG, and some of the idiotic decisions he made in keeping the characters these two dimensional cariacatures that wouldn't change over the course of the show, and how the Federation couldn't be anything BUT the perfect government and I'll put it right on the table. The best thing to happen to 24th century Star Trek was Roddenberry's death. DS9 wasn't perfect, but it was better than early TNG, just like the end of TNG was far better than its beginning, when the characters started taking on some added dimension.

Thankfully, he died before he off and did to Star Trek what Lucas did to Star Wars, even though Berman and Braga didn't do much better in the long run.

3rdvogon
2008-Jan-10, 10:18 AM
I think one of the reasons for how memorable a Sci Fi series becomes and thus the likelyhood of it being re-run is partly what it had to compete against in its own time.

For example Star Trek TOS - what competition did it really have "Lost in Space" "Land of the Giants" Hey No Contest.

Star Trek TNG of course was still able to ride the wave produced by Star Wars and there was not much else in space based Sci Fi on TV at the same time. Added to that the big screen follow-ups to ST TOS helped to keep the ST flame alive without directly competing with TNG for air time.

DS9 on the other hand did not have such an open field most especially as other posters have already mentioned it was running head to head against another series set on a space station B5. I will not repeat all the other very valid points that previous posters have made comparing the two but as the newboy on the block B5 had the advantage of being fresh it was never going to be burdened by the ST Goody two shoes Federation legacy. Also the effects sets and everything else had that more gritty "post Alien" look which was more in tune with today's audiences rather than the neat clean antiseptic look of ST.

Once you moved on to Voyager and Enterprise then of course they were competing against the likes of SG1, in all respects the field was now much less open than it had been for ST TOS. I feel that this may be a major contributing factor to how a series is viewed any space based Sci Fi today has to try much harder to outshine and make its cultural mark than three or four decades ago, thats the whole problem with nostalgia is that it gives you a distorted view of the past.

Sticks
2008-Jan-10, 11:03 AM
They are showing DS9 re-runs on Virgin 1 here in the UK, usually weekdays at 20:00 and double bills on Saturday and Sunday from 14:00

I quite liked DS9 out of all the franchises, as for Enterprise I liked that too and Virgin 1 are doing re-runs of that as well, but why did the last episode have to be made into an addendum for the Pegasus episode in TNG?

WaxRubiks
2008-Jan-10, 01:14 PM
gi'me Blake's 7 anyday.

Noclevername
2008-Jan-12, 03:06 AM
I quite liked DS9 out of all the franchises, as for Enterprise I liked that too and Virgin 1 are doing re-runs of that as well, but why did the last episode have to be made into an addendum for the Pegasus episode in TNG?

Because Berman and Braga suck. They couldn't just let the last season stay in someone else's hands, especially when Manny Coto was doing a better job than they had, so they had to wrest control of the finale and put their own ham-handed amateurish spin on it. At least that's my opinion on the subject.

Moose
2008-Jan-12, 12:48 PM
Because Berman and Braga suck. They couldn't just let the last season stay in someone else's hands, especially when Manny Coto was doing a better job than they had, so they had to wrest control of the finale and put their own ham-handed amateurish spin on it. At least that's my opinion on the subject.

It seems to be supported by the Captain's Log DVD set. All three Enterprise episode picks were B&B. None were Coto's. And they claimed that the awful finale somehow polled first as the fan choice of all things. (I'd like to insist that all future B&B-run polls be monitored by UN observers.)

Curiously enough, Scott Bakula's pick (Captain's Pick) happened to be the episode they were filming (the warp-3 flight-test episode) when BA got his tour of the set.

Launch window
2008-Jan-13, 07:44 AM
I take dark and scary anyday over the pablum of Voyager....

Voyager fell flat on its face, badly managed, poorly executed. The DS9 series had some great actors and some very good episodes but if you ask me Babylon-5 was a much better show. I also think DS9 'borrowed' a lot from B-5, much of the 'borrowing' happened soon after Paramount got their hands on draft JMS pitched.

Tobin Dax
2008-Jan-13, 10:17 PM
I also think DS9 'borrowed' a lot from B-5, much of the 'borrowing' happened soon after Paramount got their hands on draft JMS pitched.

And as is said all over this board, what you think is not important. This stupid idea needs to die. It's another conspiracy theory with enough information out there to show that it's absurd.

Noclevername
2008-Jan-13, 10:38 PM
And as is said all over this board, what you think is not important. This stupid idea needs to die. It's another conspiracy theory with enough information out there to show that it's absurd.

Got evidence? Please present it. Politely.

Delvo
2008-Jan-13, 10:54 PM
Got evidence? Please present it. Politely.You first.

Noclevername
2008-Jan-13, 11:05 PM
You first.

Me first what? I didn't assert anything. You did.

Jason
2008-Jan-13, 11:19 PM
It is a pretty big coincidence that two shows that both were the name of a space station with a number in their title got started at about the same time.

Noclevername
2008-Jan-13, 11:48 PM
It is a pretty big coincidence that two shows that both were the name of a space station with a number in their title got started at about the same time.

Both involved a planet that had been occupied for generations by a militaristic empire. (Bajor/Narn)

Both had an empire that was trying to regain its past military glories. (Cardassian/Centauri)

Both involved an advanced yet enigmatic and manipulative race of aliens seen as religious figures, who sometimes helped and sometimes hindered other species. (Vorlons/Prophets)

Both had idealistic young doctors who came to practice "frontier medicine" and examine aliens, and both had illegal secrets and bad relationships with their fathers (To be fair, most Star Trek characters seem to have bad relationships with their fathers.)

Both had a race with bony heads who had fought humans in the past and had a strained relationship with humans which sometimes broke into violence. (Klingons/Minbari)

Both involved an enemy who could hide easily and had fanatically loyal followers (Shadows/Changelings)

Both had an organization in their own government that acted illegally and traitorously (Psi-Corp/Section 31)

Both built up to a galactic war.

Both got a fancy new warship built with groundbreaking but tempermental technology (Defiant/Whitestar)

Both had sucky last seasons. ;)

EDIT: Forgot to add, both also had high-ranking traitors try to take over Earth's government; successfully on B5, not quite on DS9.

Delvo
2008-Jan-13, 11:55 PM
Me first what? I didn't assert anything. You did.No, I didn't, at least not on the subject at hand, a B5/DS9 copy conspiracy.

(For a forum about science, there is quite a tendency here for people to get sloppy with the facts as soon as a subject in which they're emotionally involved comes up!)

And the side you would appear to have taken and been defending (that there was such a copy conspiracy) was the side that did make an assertion to start with in here, not the other way around.

(For a forum about science, there is quite a tendency here for people to get sloppy with logic as soon as a subject in which they're emotionally involved comes up!)

Tobin Dax
2008-Jan-14, 12:39 AM
I don't want to get involved in the debate, nor do I want to hijack the thread. I've seen statements from DS9 show-runners saying that they didn't steal ideas from DS9, but I don't have any links handy, nor do I have the time or desire to get involved in this right now.

I do want to address two points mentioned above, though.

-Most Federation space stations have numbers in their designations (since the original series), and we'd heard of a DS# station before DS9 came out.

-The bony-headed, violent Klingons with a history of fighting humans is older than JMS's proposal to paramount by at least 4 years. That's not a valid comparison for your side of the argument.

The rest of noclevername's statements are just as flimsy.

Noclevername
2008-Jan-14, 01:07 AM
And the side you would appear to have taken and been defending (that there was such a copy conspiracy) was the side that did make an assertion to start with in here, not the other way around.


There's also a tendency to read things into what is said that weren't actually said. I took no one's "side". I asked for information in response to Tobin Dax's post, that's all. He said there's "enough information out there", so I wanted to see some.

Launch window
2008-Jan-14, 09:42 AM
It is a pretty big coincidence that two shows that both were the name of a space station with a number in their title got started at about the same time.

I thought DS9 had some great episodes and some fantastic actors but it was a very different show to Gene Roddenberry's original vision and what it didn't have was originality. The B5 concept by JMS was pitched to Paramount in the years 1998-1989, for those counting that's at least two years before DS9 was created. Now given the fact that one precedes the other, and that Paramount had seen the Joe Michael Straczynski's 'Bible' way back in 1989, I think it's fair to say that they may have worked some of those Babylon Five 5 elements into their new DeepSpaceNine product not too soon after turning JMS down.

ravens_cry
2008-Jan-14, 10:06 AM
One thing I can say about DS9 in its favor...great music. No I am not talking about the sound track, though that wasn't bad, I mean Vic Fontaine. I am sorry, but I love Frank Sinatra lounge lizard type music. I love the song at the end of 'Finding Nemo' it is oen of my favourites.
Plus the characters had conflict with one another, something 'the master' Gene Roddenarry didn't want. I am sorry, but here I think he made a mistake. Story is about conflict, and inter-character conflict can be one of the greatest kinds.
I can't compare it to B5 because I have never seen B5. Sorry.

DataCable
2008-Jan-14, 10:21 AM
...that Paramount had seen the Joe Michael Straczynski's 'Bible' way back in 1989, I think it's fair to say that they may have worked some of those Babylon Five 5 elements into their new DeepSpaceNine product not too soon after turning JMS down.
[emphasis mine] As with CT's who paint the Gubbmint as a single monolithic being, I have to ask, who are "they"? Did Berman and Piller ever see the B5 pitch?

Van Rijn
2008-Jan-14, 10:58 AM
[emphasis mine] As with CT's who paint the Gubbmint as a single monolithic being, I have to ask, who are "they"? Did Berman and Piller ever see the B5 pitch?

Well, here is what JMS says. From:

http://www.jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-7652

Was B5 brought to Paramount?
Yes, it was, and I have the correspondence to prove it. Were some of the
development people at Paramount who read the B5 screenplay and saw the series treatment and bible also involved in the DS9 development? It seems that this is indeed the case. That's not unsubstantiated "**" as you say, and I really don't care what you think on that subject. All of that is a matter of record.

Were Pillar and Berman aware of B5 at any time? No. Of that I am also confident. The only question in my mind is to what degree did the development people steer them?

I don't care if Paramount tried to copy B5, but, obviously, the idea won't go away because JMS was a key person saying it happened. I'd be pretty impressed if somebody could prove it didn't happen.

DataCable
2008-Jan-14, 11:34 AM
Were some of the development people at Paramount who read the B5 screenplay and saw the series treatment and bible also involved in the DS9 development? It seems that this is indeed the case.
So does JMS know for a fact that there were "development people" in common between the two projects, or is this just circular reasoning?



Were Pillar and Berman aware of B5 at any time? No. Of that I am also confident.And I distinctly recall reading as much from JMS before, at least directed at Berman specifically.



I'd be pretty impressed if somebody could prove it didn't happen.Which, naturally, is impossible.

Van Rijn
2008-Jan-14, 11:52 AM
So does JMS know for a fact that there were "development people" in common between the two projects, or is this just circular reasoning?


Read JMS's posts and come to your own conclusion.



Which, naturally, is impossible.

Right, which is why I found Tobin Dax's post amusing. This is a CT, but not a very grand one, as such go, and it certainly is within the realm of possibility. What I find interesting is how strongly some B5 fans support it it, and how strongly some DS9 fans oppose it. I liked both series,but they're both history now, and isn't something I can get too worked up about. Still, I find the occasional debates amusing.