Support NeoGAF

[iamaustrian]

But isn't it among the least popular star trek shows ? I know I like it but I understand when you see people saying things like you quoted.

it has nothing to do with "being popular". DS9 is really bad. I watched pretty much everything Star Trek related in my life and the only thing I really regret watching was DS9.
oh and Nemesis....... and Insurrection.....

Spoiler

and Generations

 

[CiSTM]

it has nothing to do with "being popular". DS9 is really bad. I watched pretty much everything Star Trek related in my life and the only thing I really regret watching was DS9.
oh and Nemesis....... and Insurrection.....

Spoiler

and Generations

I didn't mean people wouldn't watch the show because it wasn't popular. It never got popular because people didn't like it in the first place and therefore I understand that there will be always negative comments about DS9. Also Voyager > DS9 seems to be the general consensus everywhere except in GAF.

BTW why didn't you like the show ? Was it the fact that it didn't really follow the roots of the orginal theme aka space exploration ?

 

[Freeza Under The Shower]

That is without a doubt my favorite DS9 episode.

Janeway doesn't deserve to scrub Sisko's taint. She is nowhere near his league.

Agreed. Voyager was really just "if it moves, fire phasers", whereas DS9 at least kept some of the TNG theater background intact.

Spoiler

And it proved that the old Star Trek short skirts were hot as hell. (time travel plot redeemed!)

Still, one should not have to choose between SW, ST or B5. They all have their own inner workings and their own appeals / merits, even if I personally value B5 more, because it expanded on politics, which is simplified or ignored in other sci-fi (as SW and ST). Just don't ask me to choose between B5 and TNG.

 

[Cheebs]

I didn't mean people wouldn't watch the show because it wasn't popular. It never got popular because people didn't like it in the first place and therefore I understand that there will be always negative comments about DS9. Also Voyager > DS9 seems to be the general consensus everywhere except in GAF.

BTW why didn't you like the show ? Was it the fact that it didn't really follow the roots of the orginal theme aka space exploration ?

It wasn't popular because it wasn't what audiences wanted from Trek. Trek to the mainstream Trek fans, not the hardcore Trekkies is about a Captain and his crew on a starship exploring and getting into all sorts of hijinks.

It's also why Voyager was a much more mainstream success than DS9.

even if I personally value B5 more, because it expanded on politics, which is simplified or ignored in other sci-fi (as SW and ST). Just don't ask me to choose between B5 and TNG.

Star Wars ignored politics? Star Wars was insanely political. The original trilogy was at it's core about a political struggle between "terrorists" and the government with the attempts to over-throw it. And the prequels were about how a democracy can quickly turn into a dictatorship purely out of fear from the masses Nazi Germany style.

Extremely political franchise. And I would call the very blunt Jesus parallels rather political in nature.

 

[Cheerilee]

Though it did it not making any sense, timeline wise; the script called for Shattner to be older than Kirk in any of the previous movies, and sending Spock a 'good luck old friend' card... when he was missing in the expanse until Picard brought him back during Generations, and dead shortly there after.

Pretty much the entire time I was watching Enterprise, I was practically begging for the black silhouette guy from the temporal cold war to eventually be revealed as an alternate universe Shatner/Kirk (the legendary "temporal menace" himself), turned slightly evil and selfish by the realization that he was going to be killed off in such a lame way.

Edit: Since my delusion was never confirmed or denied, I choose to believe that it always was him.

 

[Htown]

Also Voyager > DS9 seems to be the general consensus everywhere except in GAF.

not really.

 

[bachikarn]

There are people that actually like Voyager? damn

 

[user_nat]

He was in Nemesis, but the scenes were deleted... he doesn't make it into any of the feature film. The Actor is now doing work as Fawkes, the leader of the Axis of Anarchy in "The Guild"

Holy crap, never even noticed him.

 

[Freeza Under The Shower]

Star Wars ignored politics? Star Wars was insanely political. The original trilogy was at it's core about a political struggle between "terrorists" and the government with the attempts to over-throw it. And the prequels were about how a democracy can quickly turn into a dictatorship purely out of fear from the masses Nazi Germany style.

Extremely political franchise. And I would call the very blunt Jesus parallels rather political in nature.

Black & white is not complicated (and quite frankly: not political because it just uses monsters and not actual people) and the franchise as a whole was never intended to be anything more than an action flick.

Just watch Robot Chicken Star Wars pt.2 and the Princes Leia comment. Or Darth Vader's display of what happened.
(note: I only watched the movies, I do not care about any fanfiction or novels that exist 'alongside' them. Because if those count, then Halo is politically complicated as well, when any player can tell it isn't)

I mean, there is certainly the political theme that was retconned onto the franchise, but as whole it's simplistic, unrealistic (B&W views) and extremely lacking of moral-political grey zones.

It's not as if B5 is perfect in that sense, but at least it had the intention of making it clear that things are never that easy, as the fate of the previous stations and the G'Kar - Molari relationship would make very clear during the course of the show.
Looking back, I do dislike how that was thrown out in S3-4 -as space opera took over- and made a very short comeback in S5.

 

[Enosh]

I only watched the movies, I do not care about any fanfiction or novels that exist 'alongside' them. Because if those count, then Halo is politically complicated as well, when any player can tell it isn't

you can't ignore stuff just beacose you don't like it -.-

 

[Freeza Under The Shower]

you can't ignore stuff just beacose you don't like it -.-

Really? That's funny, because this forum -like any forum or debate- is filled with people giving opinions about stuff they know nothing about or even have any clue how to properly research them.

One doesn't have to know more than the theoretical core to have some understanding of what something is. In this case, that core is the first three movies.


Or do you really want to include every furry fanfiction for 'complete relevance'? :')

 

[DrForester]

I didn't mean people wouldn't watch the show because it wasn't popular. It never got popular because people didn't like it in the first place and therefore I understand that there will be always negative comments about DS9. Also Voyager > DS9 seems to be the general consensus everywhere except in GAF.

Most trekies seem to think of Voyager as the beginning of the end for the Trek Franchise. I never heard anyone say it was DS9.

Voyager has an incredibly weak cast and many in the cast were just shuffled to the back.

Tuvok, Kim, Neelix and especially Chakotay were virtually ignored for 7 years. It was the Janeway and Doctor show, with Seven of Nine added a bit later on. The stuck up pilot and engineer eventually got married.

Then they had a bunch of sub par villains. The Kazon were a total joke. Seska was such a great idea, but wasted. :lol The Herogen :lol .The Vedians were really the only good (recurring) villain they came up with (they did have a few good single apperance villains). Which leads to the other problem with Voyager.

Most the episodes were crap. Now, when it was good, Voyager had some episodes that I think rank with some of the finest hours of Star Trek, but they were so few and far between. One Voyager episode was so bad even the writers had to admit they don't consider it cannon anymore.

 

[Enosh]

Or do you really want to include every furry fanfiction for 'complete relevance'? :')

no
that's why there is an official statement that everything with the official SW label is canon.
if that fanfiction gets aproved by Lucas Licensing then it becomes canon

 

[Cheebs]

Black & white is not complicated (and quite frankly: not political because it just uses monsters and not actual people) and the franchise as a whole was never intended to be anything more than an action flick.

I never said it was good politics or particularly deep politics but Star Wars WAS political, so saying it ignored politics is factually wrong. You may (and are on point) in saying it is simple black and white politics, but that is still politics.

And I don't see how using "monsters" negates the political nature of it. The rise of Palpatine was clearly a Hitler based story line because of the vast similarity of how both rose to a dictatorship through political means and stroking fears.

And I wouldn't call the endless Jesus references in the Vader character "nothing more than an action flick". The virgin birth, the chosen one aspect, sacrificing himself...etc is all clearly politically motivated Messiah motifs.

Most trekies seem to think of Voyager as the beginning of the end for the Trek Franchise. I never heard anyone say it was DS9.

He said the general consensus outside of GAF, not general consensus of Trekkies. Voyager was a much bigger hit ratings wise so a lot of people obviously preferred Voyager to DS9.

 

[DrForester]

He said the general consensus outside of GAF, not general consensus of Trekkies. Voyager was a much bigger hit ratings wise so a lot of people obviously preferred Voyager to DS9.

Where did you find those numbers?

According to Wiki (And they do have a source) DS9 had a 6% Nielsen rating, Voyager only 5%. It dropped to 4% at the end, but it seems that DS9's end of series ratigns weren't as high as Voyagers beginning of life airings. Which doesn't seem a fair comparison.

also.

http://www.treknation.com/articles/ratings_history.shtml

Deep Space Nine spent most of its lifetime as the number one syndicated first-run show on television despite its falling number of viewers. Even when it became a near-serial show (usually, long-term serial shows are ratings disasters -- witness Babylon 5) airing in prime-time in less than 60 percent of the nation, DS9 managed well over a 4.0 average in its final two years. As a general rule, a syndicated show needs to maintain a 3.0 to be successful, DS9 always maintained that despite the strikes against it. Look at the other sci-fi shows similar to DS9: Earth: Final Conflict is regarded as a decent show ratings-wise, staying in the lower 3.0 range and Babylon 5 is the hot potato of science fiction television -- it's done so poorly that no one wants to hold on to it.

As a serial, more cultish television show, DS9 is right behind the X-Files on the all-time list of successes even with extreme disadvantages.

Voyager, on the other hand, has very little that it can brag about. That's not because Voyager is an awful, unpopular show, but because it's on an awful, unpopular network. Voyager can only do as well as UPN because of Voyager's status as a network show. UPN has been losing stations since day one and is now only airing in a little over 60 percent of the nation, meaning that Voyager is competing in a very crowded market with both hands tied behind its back. For its disadvantages, Voyager has still managed to remain UPN's top show. However, Voyager will never be able to perform near the level of its predecessors so long as it drags the carcass of UPN wherever it goes. That's not the sign of viewers losing interest in Trek, it's the sign that viewers aren't interested in UPN.

Admittedly, even if it's behind XFiles, it's probably one big freaking gap :lol :lol

 

[CiSTM]

Most trekies seem to think of Voyager as the beginning of the end for the Trek Franchise. I never heard anyone say it was DS9.

When I was getting into ST and browsed some trek forums and other boards to decide where to start the consensus at the time was Voyager > DS9. People were bitching about both shows but generally people liked Voyager more because Voyager was more traditional ST show. Most common argument about DS9 was the "fact that there was no Trek in Star Trek DS9".

Personally I hate Voyager and really like DS9 but I still have the image that Voyager was more popular show among trek fans.

 

[Cheebs]

Where did you find those numbers?

According to Wiki (And they do have a source) DS9 had a 6% Nielsen rating, Voyager only 5%. It dropped to 4% at the end, but it seems that DS9's end of series ratigns weren't as high as Voyagers beginning of life airings. Which doesn't seem a fair comparison.

also.

http://www.treknation.com/articles/ratings_history.shtml



Admittedly, even if it's behind XFiles, it's probably one big freaking gap :lol :lol

Odd. I kept seeing this chart posted on TrekBBS ranking the seasons viewership and Voyager always had a higher ranking in the chart thing.

How does this all fit in with the fact Paramount considered canceling DS9 after Season 6?

 

[dalyr95]

I was always under the impression that TNG's rating were stellar and then every series since did worse and worse. DS9 while not doing TNG numbers was a solid success and successful enough to get the Promenade built in the Las Vegas Hilton for the ST experience!

What I nicked off Wiki:

Although DS9's ratings were solid, it was never as successful as the syndicated Star Trek: The Next Generation, with approximately 6% versus 11% of U.S. households watching during sweeps months. However it performed better than its network sibling Star Trek: Voyager which averaged around 5% according to the Nielsen Ratings.[1] Although DS9 had a very popular first season, it experienced a gradual loss of audience over time, ultimately dropping to a 4% household rating. One factor was the increasingly crowded syndicated marketplace which provided viewers with a number of alternative shows to follow (Babylon 5, Xena, Earth: Final Conflict). Another factor was the minimal promotion for DS9 as Paramount focused its efforts on its flagship network show Star Trek: Voyager. Finally, from 1995 onwards, most of the independent stations joined new networks (UPN and WB), and these primetime shows gradually pushed DS9 into weekend/late-night slots when few viewers were watching. The television market expanded from three networks (1987 when TNG premiered) to six. The competition became so intense that eventually DS9's ratings dropped below fantasy fiction rivals Hercules: The Legendary Journeys and Xena: Warrior Princess, and by the year 2001 nearly all original programming for syndication had disappeared.

 

[LakeEarth]

So sad because that's when DS9 was at it's best.

 

[MedHead]

Most common argument about DS9 was the "fact that there was no Trek in Star Trek DS9".

Absolutely. The show followed a bureaucrat in a hotel out in the middle of nowhere filled with whiny aliens. They eventually forgot about that and gave him a ship and a reason for being out there, but the show's original premise was not Star Trek, and the additions of actual "trekking" highlighted the show's flaws.

Voyager was more like a typical Star Trek, but it was awful.

 

[Freeza Under The Shower]

I never said it was good politics or particularly deep politics but Star Wars WAS political, so saying it ignored politics is factually wrong. You may (and are on point) in saying it is simple black and white politics, but that is still politics.

And I don't see how using "monsters" negates the political nature of it. The rise of Palpatine was clearly a Hitler based story line because of the vast similarity of how both rose to a dictatorship through political means and stroking fears.

And I wouldn't call the endless Jesus references in the Vader character "nothing more than an action flick". The virgin birth, the chosen one aspect, sacrificing himself...etc is all clearly politically motivated Messiah motifs.

As for the first bit: fair enough.

second bit: I believe that people process symbols differently in different contexts. A clear "monstrous fiction" is processed differently from a fiction that strives for 'realism' like say, the movie Crash. I don't really know how to explain this intuition of mine, but I think people (especcially a European like myself) are made insensitive to "typical monsters from myth" and I feel that Nazism has been actively pushed into the "typical monster from myth" range, even while we acknowledge that it was real at one point. (maybe this is part of why holocaust denial appears to be increasing)

In that sense, we may process those symbols as 'relatively harmless' because they are myth and not 'real' to us and the lasting impact of such stories is too small to notice. Whereas a 'realistic' story may have a large impact because it is processed differently.

third bit: I sense no association between politics and (christian?) Messiah plots. To me, that interpretation does no exist / I cannot perform it. And even if try, I still don't consider Vader a messiah figure (his one good action hardly redeems him from his previous genocidal actions).

 

[Cheebs]

third bit: I sense no association between politics and (christian?) Messiah plots. To me, that interpretation does no exist / I cannot perform it. And even if try, I still don't consider Vader a messiah figure (his one good action hardly redeems him from his previous genocidal actions).

The characters in the movie point blank refer to him as a messiah ("the chosen one"). How in the world can you not see him as a messiah when the characters themselves call him a messiah and he is born of a virgin birth and so forth? Lucas in his lack of subtly in his writing ability makes it absolutely clear that Darth Vader is a Christ like figure who was created of the Force purely to sacrifice himself to destroy the Sith. He has even said so in interviews, commentaries and so forth.

They make it perfectly clear he was fully redeemed. That was what that whole Ghost nonsense at the end was about. You seem to be ignoring everything Lucas is hitting you over the head with over the 6 movies.

 

[lunarworks]

Sisko didn't die. Dukat burns and falls while the prophets whisk Sisko away before he is killed.

A Trek finale that didn't involve time travel. A rare thing indeed.

 

[Medalion]

A Trek finale that didn't involve time travel. A rare thing indeed.

Must be why most people didn't like DS9, it was so unlike the traditional formula of take a starship, travel to new galaxies stories.

DS9 travelled yes, to the Gamma Quadrant but mostly just the Alpha Quadrant and overarching storyline of the Dominion War.

 

[MC Safety]

The characters in the movie point blank refer to him as a messiah ("the chosen one"). How in the world can you not see him as a messiah when the characters themselves call him a messiah and he is born of a virgin birth and so forth? Lucas in his lack of subtly in his writing ability makes it absolutely clear that Darth Vader is a Christ like figure who was created of the Force purely to sacrifice himself to destroy the Sith. He has even said so in interviews, commentaries and so forth.

They make it perfectly clear he was fully redeemed. That was what that whole Ghost nonsense at the end was about. You seem to be ignoring everything Lucas is hitting you over the head with over the 6 movies.

Lucas is clumsy and unsuccessful in his use of a Christ metaphor, just as he's clumsy and unsuccessful at most other things regarding Star Wars.

You can call Vader whatever you like. But he massacred lots of people and did a lot of crappy things. That he had a deathbed conversion doesn't make him christlike. As I recall, Jesus redeemed humanity. Vader redeemed himself and saved Luke. It's not the same thing.

Oh, and Janeway was a dick. Voyager was boring and pointless, and it had none of the things that make Star Trek endearing.

 

[lunarworks]

Must be why most people didn't like DS9, it was so unlike the traditional formula of take a starship, travel to new galaxies stories.

DS9 travelled yes, to the Gamma Quadrant but mostly just the Alpha Quadrant and overarching storyline of the Dominion War.

That, and the technobabble was kept to a bare minimum. Problems weren't solved simply by (teching) the (tech). I really, really hated the Voyager habit of substituting that for actual plot.

 

[Cheebs]

Lucas is clumsy and unsuccessful in his use of a Christ metaphor, just as he's clumsy and unsuccessful at most other things regarding Star Wars.

You can call Vader whatever you like. But he massacred lots of people and did a lot of crappy things. That he had a deathbed conversion doesn't make him christlike. As I recall, Jesus redeemed humanity. Vader redeemed himself and saved Luke. It's not the same thing.

Yes it is clumsy, that is Lucas's poor screenwriting skills at work. But it is clear Lucas's intentions are to showcase Vader as a Christ like Messiah. And he did do a lot more than save Luke. Killing Palpatine (and himself) got rid of the Sith fulfilling that whole "bringing balance" shenanigans.

I am not saying Lucas did the Christ like/Messiah aspect WELL, I am just saying it is obvious Lucas's intention is to showcase Vader as the Christ figure of his little universe.

Vader popping up as a happy Ghost buddying up with Obi-Wan is Lucas bluntly showcasing Vader was fully redeemed and fulfilled what he had to do. It's not something open for interpretation. Lucas makes his Vader story line very clear and very obvious. It may not be told well, but it is indeed told and not something that can be questioned.

 

[Escape Goat]

Absolutely. The show followed a bureaucrat in a hotel out in the middle of nowhere filled with whiny aliens. They eventually forgot about that and gave him a ship and a reason for being out there, but the show's original premise was not Star Trek, and the additions of actual "trekking" highlighted the show's flaws.

Voyager was more like a typical Star Trek, but it was awful.

STAR TREK IS NOT ABOUT EXPLORING SPACE.


It is about exploring the human condition. Space is merely the backdrop used to convey these stories!!! War, religion, family, freedom, and the darker aspects of humanity are all equally valid points to explore. It may have been the Trek that deviated the most from Rodenberry's vision of the future. If you hate it for that then fine. But saying you hate it because its "Not Trek" is stupid.

 

[Anasui Kishibe]

Absolutely. The show followed a bureaucrat in a hotel out in the middle of nowhere filled with whiny aliens. They eventually forgot about that and gave him a ship and a reason for being out there, but the show's original premise was not Star Trek, and the additions of actual "trekking" highlighted the show's flaws.

Voyager was more like a typical Star Trek, but it was awful.

ahahahhahahahahhaha

"show's flaws" totally got me. Thanks, junior

 

[BorkBork]

STAR TREK IS NOT ABOUT EXPLORING SPACE.


It is about exploring the human condition. Space is merely the backdrop used to convey these stories!!! War, religion, family, freedom, and the darker aspects of humanity are all equally valid points to explore. It may have been the Trek that deviated the most from Rodenberry's vision of the future. If you hate it for that then fine. But saying you hate it because its "Not Trek" is stupid.

Bingo. That being said, Trek stopped being "Trek" early on in Next Generation. And thank god for it.

 

[Cheebs]

Bingo. That being said, Trek stopped being "Trek" early on in Next Generation. And thank god for it.

Well Trek is back to being Trek to a certain to degree. Trek early on was very funny, light and swashbuckling in nature with the Captain being a perfect hero which had women faint into his arms at the very sight of him.

The new film is probably closest to that "feel" of Star Trek that we have had since the original series ended in 1969.

 

[Enosh]

Must be why most people didn't like DS9, it was so unlike the traditional formula of take a starship, travel to new galaxies stories.

no trek series traveled to other galaxies

 

[NumberTwo]

Makes sense, Sisko is the only major Trek captain to not appear in one of the movies. Because he's shit.

Now see. I was going to see Eli, but since you want to be such a weisenheimer...

 

[siddx]

wtf is this madness?

Voyager had some incredible episodes, more than people seem to remember.
DS9 was one of the most brilliant shows ever made, especially from season 3 on.
Enterprise got killed off just as it was starting to come together and actually feel like a star trek series. We started to see more romulans and andorians, and other ST staples. I really had high hopes for the series and its a damn shame it got canceled before it got show it's true potential.

Some of you need to be punched in your damn sandy vaginas.

 

[Medalion]

I won't say Voyager is bad, but it paled in comparison for me to DS9 and TNG. After TNG, it was time for something different, but still set in the world of Star Trek... watching one ship trekking along for 7 years is long enough with TNG. That's my view.

 

[MC Safety]

Yes it is clumsy, that is Lucas's poor screenwriting skills at work. But it is clear Lucas's intentions are to showcase Vader as a Christ like Messiah. And he did do a lot more than save Luke. Killing Palpatine (and himself) got rid of the Sith fulfilling that whole "bringing balance" shenanigans.

I am not saying Lucas did the Christ like/Messiah aspect WELL, I am just saying it is obvious Lucas's intention is to showcase Vader as the Christ figure of his little universe.

Vader popping up as a happy Ghost buddying up with Obi-Wan is Lucas bluntly showcasing Vader was fully redeemed and fulfilled what he had to do. It's not something open for interpretation. Lucas makes his Vader story line very clear and very obvious. It may not be told well, but it is indeed told and not something that can be questioned.

Yeah, but you used the messiah theme as an example of Star Wars' depth. When it's so badly (and obviously) mishandled, it tends to pothole your argument.

 

[Htown]

Voyager had some incredible episodes, more than people seem to remember.
DS9 was one of the most brilliant shows ever made, especially from season 3 on.
Enterprise got killed off just as it was starting to come together and actually feel like a star trek series. We started to see more romulans and andorians, and other ST staples. I really had high hopes for the series and its a damn shame it got canceled before it got show it's true potential.

Voyager DID have some really great episodes sprinkled around, and I especially liked the show when Seven of Nine first came aboard and was routinely calling Janeway on her bullshit. It also, unfortunately, had a damn high percentage of TNG-lite episodes that were absolutely terrible, and you never felt like the ship was in any long-term danger because all damage was magically undone by the next episode, even though there were no Starfleet bases within decades worth of travel.

DS9 was really great, but it took a lot of chances with its main cast and its premise, and a lot of people somehow never got past that. (I got hooked when I randomly caught In the Pale Moonlight on a rerun late at night).

Enterprise gets a lot of undeserved crap. The initial episodes with the crew in over their heads were good, and the Vulcan-Andorian stuff was awesome from day one. It did, especially in season 2, run into a lot of that same TNG-lite type of terrible nonsense, and it wasted a lot of time on Temporal Cold War episodes which, while often entertaining and well-executed, eventually led nowhere. That said, season 3 was basically Voyager done RIGHT, and (minus the stupid space nazi stuff) the stretch from the end of that season up until the penultimate episode is one of the better stretches of consistently good episodes in Trek.

 

[Anasui Kishibe]

wtf is this madness?

Voyager had some incredible episodes, more than people seem to remember.
DS9 was one of the most brilliant shows ever made, especially from season 3 on.
Enterprise got killed off just as it was starting to come together and actually feel like a star trek series. We started to see more romulans and andorians, and other ST staples. I really had high hopes for the series and its a damn shame it got canceled before it got show it's true potential.

Some of you need to be punched in your damn sandy vaginas.

a show shouldn't require more than four seasons to become interesting. I wanted to like Enterprise but it got Voyager's nasty virus: shit crew, shit captain and shit writing

I'd go as far as to say the best thing in a Trek show is the crew: if you nail it you can build an entire structure around it, if you don't not even a miracle can save the show from oblivion

 

[DrForester]

I'd go as far as to say the best thing in a Trek show is the crew: if you nail it you can build an entire structure around it, if you don't not even a miracle can save the show from oblivion

I don't really think that's true. Mostly because every Trek SHow other than DS9 really only has a few main characters. Even among the primary cast, lots of characters have little happen to them.

Original Series:
It was all Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. Chekov, Uhura, and Sulu were all just glorified extras and Scotty was there to tell the captain the engines can't take it.

Next Generation:
Picard, Worf and Data show. Crusher(s) were background, as was Troi. Geordi was nothing but something for Data to play off. Riker was always there, but he didn't do much.

Voyager:
The Kathryn Janeway Experience With The Doctor. Everyone else was just filler, till 7 of nine came along. Chakotay has to be the most neglected character in Trek History.

Enterprise:
HEY! Look at T'Pol and Hoshi's Boobs!

 

[Anasui Kishibe]

I don't really think that's true. Mostly because every Trek SHow other than DS9 really only has a few main characters. Even among the primary cast, lots of characters have little happen to them.

Original Series:
It was all Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. Chekov, Uhura, and Sulu were all just glorified extras and Scotty was there to tell the captain the engines can't take it.

Next Generation:
Picard, Worf and Data show. Crusher(s) were background, as was Troi. Geordi was nothing but something for Data to play off. Riker was always there, but he didn't do much.

Voyager:
The Kathryn Janeway Experience With The Doctor. Everyone else was just filler, till 7 of nine came along. Chakotay has to be the most neglected character in Trek History.

Enterprise:
HEY! Look at T'Pol and Hoshi's Boobs!

that's why I said "nail it or fail it". VOY and ENT definitely did fail it, to me, while TOS and TNG had a trio of great characters with beautiful chemistry between em. I wasn't making an assumption based solely on the number of interesting characters, because I believe fans love only a handful of em for each serie. I'd watch TNG only for Picard, or TOS only for Spock/Kirk. DS9 is the exception since it's got a massive set of great characters


all in all I think that if you have a dull crew you can't expect people to stick around, expecially in ST which is strongly based on human relationships

 

[MedHead]

STAR TREK IS NOT ABOUT EXPLORING SPACE.

Star Trek is "boldly going" places. Deep Space Nine wasn't that. I never wrote that I hated the show, either.

Anasui Kishibe, I'm a Junior Member because I have less than 200 posts, and have only recently had my account activated.

 

[Anasui Kishibe]

ok, but I still disagree

 

[lunarworks]

no trek series traveled to other galaxies

Well, technically Wesley Crusher brought the Enterprise-D to another galaxy...

 

[Archer]

By the way, whatever did happen to Wesley 'Neo' Crusher?

I met Wil Wheaton a few weeks ago. Cool guy, extremely down to earth. Had a few LOLs with him.

 

[Zen]

Absolutely. The show followed a bureaucrat in a hotel out in the middle of nowhere filled with whiny aliens. They eventually forgot about that and gave him a ship and a reason for being out there, but the show's original premise was not Star Trek, and the additions of actual "trekking" highlighted the show's flaws.

Voyager was more like a typical Star Trek, but it was awful.

I always felt like DS9 did retain a lot of what made Trek compelling.

StarTrek uses the 'boldy going' to explore the human condition, it's a means to an end, and DS9 certainly also focused on the human condition even if its means were more through what you might call soap opera.

Instead of boldly going into the unknown, the unknown came to DS9.

and DS9 wasn't the middle of nowhere! It had significant strategic importance (once the wormhole opened).

 

[Epcott]

Hmm, I was hooked on DS9 during the first season (when Sisko had head hair). Later in the series when Brooks grew back his awesome "Hawk" gotee from Spencer for Hire, the show became more about mysticism and the damn shape shifting Dominion... and just became very un-Trek like.

But it's still light years better than Voyager. The only thing Voyager had going for it was Seven of Nine, and even she became boring (as did the Borg... after TNG spent so much time building up).

TNG is still my favorite. Enterprise had promise, it's a shame it became a dud

 

[Night_Trekker]

Say what you will about Janeway, but Kate Mulgrew rocks.

Agreed.

 

[Cheerilee]

Absolutely. The show followed a bureaucrat in a hotel out in the middle of nowhere filled with whiny aliens. They eventually forgot about that and gave him a ship and a reason for being out there, but the show's original premise was not Star Trek, and the additions of actual "trekking" highlighted the show's flaws.

Voyager was more like a typical Star Trek, but it was awful.

I preferred the analogy of Sisko being the sheriff of a border-crossing town of growing importance, far from the land's seat of power and the rules and lifestyle it tries to promote. Giving Sisko a ship was like giving him a war horse after the military took an interest in his region and started flowing troops through his town. He wasn't an explorer, he staged or joined occasional cross-border raids, and then returned home to his duties in town. I think the show's main weakness/strength is that it was more clearly human than Trek's usual alien disguise.

Picard was a philosopher prince, roaming the land spouting his Federation ideals. In hindsight, DS9 made Picard's mission seem even more real-world and important.

Janeway was a fake-woman, trying to impersonate Picard on her fake-exploration of a fake Gilligan's Island full of fake-aliens. The fake-Doctor was the most real part of the show. Calling Voyager a return to Trek only proves that trekking wasn't the real heart of Trek.

Enterprise felt like a bigger waste of potential than Voyager. Although both shows had their moments.

 

[LakeEarth]

a show shouldn't require more than four seasons to become interesting. I wanted to like Enterprise but it got Voyager's nasty virus: shit crew, shit captain and shit writing

Oh absolutely. But season 4 was the prequel Trek that we were expecting from the beginning. It was like fanfiction by professional writers, but I guess technically that's all non-TOS Trek.

EDIT - dude, the post above me is awesome. DS9 is an old west show, and Voyager is Gilligan's Island. Funny cause it's true.

 

[Medalion]

Gul Dukat was the best developed villain character that the new Star Treks ever made, end of story. He had amazing complexity and depth and backstory and acting.