It's being shown currently on CBS I think, but it is definitely the unloved middle child of the franchise. I have no idea why as it's one of the best.
Sadly i think it arc heavy nature means it's hard for viewers who might miss an important episode to keep up with the show.
The fact that it is station bound rather than exploring on ships upset some traditional trekkies and lastly i think having a black lead at that time might have slightly limited it's popularity.
However more and more people seem to like it now than they did when it originally aired which is great.
Given it's reliance on multi-episode arcs, dark tone and focus on character development, all in a time before people (other than hardcore fans) bought boxsets, DS9 was WAY ahead of it's time.
it's on SyFy sometimes yeah, though I wasn't so keen on the early seasons so probably won't watch it much till they get to season 3
A popular misconception imo that the first 2 seasons were rubbish,obviously theres a few clunkers but i would also put episodes like Duet,The Nagus and Necessary Evil up with the best ever Trek.
The episodes you have to watch from the first 2 seasons imo are
Season 1 - Emissary, Past Prologue, A Man Alone, Dax, The Nagus, Vortex, Battle Lines, Duet, In The Hands Of The Prophets
Season 2 - Cardassians, Necessary Evil, The Alternate, Blood Oath, The Maquis 2 parter, The Wire, Crossover, The Collaborator, Tribunal, The Jem'Hadar
That's not to say there aren't any other good episodes in the first 2 seasons but these episodes are important for the characters backstories and stuff that happens from Season 3 onwards.
A popular misconception imo that the first 2 seasons were rubbish,obviously theres a few clunkers but i would also put episodes like Duet,The Nagus and Necessary Evil up with the best ever Trek.
don't get me wrong, I agree there are some standout episodes in there, but in general I just didn't enjoy the show as much till season 3 when I felt it started finding it's identity and purpose as a show (imo)
Honestly? because its the worst star trek series by far.
To boldly go ... or i know we will set in on space station that doesn't boldly go anywhere.
Very poor relation.
I used to think that - until I watched the entire 7 seasons, and it's now my favourite. And with the introduction of the Defiant, there was plenty of planet movement. But DS9's strength was its character interaction and development and its story arcs, for me.
Being set on a Starship doesn't guarantee a decent Star Trek series, as evidenced by Voyager and Enterprise, which were beyond woeful. Ironic that you use the word 'boldly', when DS9 was the last time that Star Trek dared to be bold. After DS9 - bland, generic pap that killed the franchise for a while.
By the same token, not having to follow the 'token alien planet of the week' formula allowed for far more focus on characters - not surprisingly, DS9 had by far the best balanced ensemble of characters of any of the Trek shows. Even peripheral characters like Garak, Weyoun and Rom were better rounded than many 'primary' cast members of the other shows.
Watched the first episode tonight............I'd forgotten a few characters like Dax and Bashir, the ferengi kid who teams up with Jake, Rom............:p..........Gul Ducat, the baddy
That little dumpy priestess wasn't the Chief preistess i don't think, there's someone altogether more Holy
The 'Norm' character who hangs about at the bar and never says anything, can't remember his name, Moog ?
Got our first 'blimey, Kira, it's hot in here, better take your jacket off and show us your skimpy little bursting white blouse'...............:o:p
I'll stick with it for a while...............I didn't watch it first time around but watched it about 15-20 years ago when they ran it at one episode a night on Sky. It ambled along OK for a few seasons then really took off when the Dominion came on the scene and the last few series were fantastic.............:)
Jake's friend was Nog, who had more character development - starting off as a snivelling Ferengi troublemaker in Season 1, rising to a Starfleet Lieutenant Junior Grade by the end of Season 7. Compared to say - Harry Kim in Voyager who.....remained an Ensign for the entire seven seasons of Voyager, and, together with Janeway and Chakotay made very little character progress during that time.
It took me a long time to get into DS9, as I agree, it is a series you can't dip in and out of very easily because of the story arcs, but is very fulfilling if you can stick it out.
don't get me wrong, I agree there are some standout episodes in there, but in general I just didn't enjoy the show as much till season 3 when I felt it started finding it's identity and purpose as a show (imo)
It always had an identity and purpose. The first two seasons were simply setting the stage. The payoff was the Dominion War. Without the set up it wouldn't have worked.
A popular misconception imo that the first 2 seasons were rubbish,obviously theres a few clunkers but i would also put episodes like Duet,The Nagus and Necessary Evil up with the best ever Trek.
It always had an identity and purpose. The first two seasons were simply setting the stage. The payoff was the Dominion War. Without the set up it wouldn't have worked.
I agree with you two that the early seasons are more important than they are given credit for,don't get me wrong s4 through s7 were amazing but the first few were good as well.
"Duet" is a model of brilliance. By having just two people conversing in a grey room, the writers were able to convey the utter horror of the occupation of Bajor. The acting was sensational. Pretty much a perfect episode, not just of Trek, but of television in general.
Given it's reliance on multi-episode arcs, dark tone and focus on character development, all in a time before people (other than hardcore fans) bought boxsets, DS9 was WAY ahead of it's time.
Considering that DS9 was a shameless copy of Babylon 5 ... its more accurate to say that Babylon 5 was way ahead of its time.
Enjoy them both, but for me Babylon 5 made better use of multi epsiode (and series) arcs.
Wait, what year is it?! For a moment there I thought I was 1995 all over again. Most of us got over that petty argument well over a decade ago.
May be a petty argument, but its unofficially proven (very recently iirc) that DS9 was triggered from Babylon 5.
They're both good series; over the last 6 months I've been going through marathon sessions of watching Enterprise, Voyager (ugh, horrible), DS9 and now TNG. All the Trek series are watchable, and DS9 is without a doubt the best of the bunch. But I still prefer Babylon 5 - just a shame that the Rangers never got completed.
Even if it's true, it really doesn't matter at this point. Both shows got to tell their stories, and both were great. This seemed important to many of us back in the 90s, but today, seriously, who cares?
Given it's reliance on multi-episode arcs, dark tone and focus on character development, all in a time before people (other than hardcore fans) bought boxsets, DS9 was WAY ahead of it's time.
Plenty of series from the 90s had multi-episode series arcs.
The X Files and American Gothic to name just two.
They were dark in tone and focus too.
In fact Roots from the 70s going further back. Planet of the Apes. There are loads.
Come to think it there are a plethora of TV series who did the multi-episode arc thing. Probably going back to when television began.
Slight distinction: "Roots" was a mini series so, almost by definition, had an arc.
"Planet of the Apes" was regular episodic serial TV and, other than the ongoing threat and desire to return home, did not really have an arc. Similar to "The Fugitive" or Bill Bixby's "The Hulk".
Plenty of series from the 90s had multi-episode series arcs.
The X Files and American Gothic to name just two.
They were dark in tone and focus too.
In fact Roots from the 70s going further back. Planet of the Apes. There are loads.
Come to think it there are a plethora of TV series who did the multi-episode arc thing. Probably going back to when television began.
Without wanting to get into a "this show is better than that show" nerd fest...Its not so much the arc in itself that set B5 apart. What set it apart from from other arc shows was that it had a predetermined start, middle and end that had been written specifically for a long running TV show.
Carter & co were making up the X Files arc as they went along (not that theres anything wrong with that of course), American Gothic came a couple of years after B5. Roots the tv series was based on the book. Planet of the Apes, Hulk and Fugitive each had a basic theme (the pitch), which isn't the same as a multi layered story arc.
Can anyone think of a pre-B5 series that was written specifically for TV, as a five year series with an already planed out beginning, middle and end?
Can anyone think of a pre-B5 series that was written specifically for TV, as a five year series with an already planed out beginning, middle and end?
It's hard to think of one since B5 either. I agree that's more than just having an arc but it's the planning and execution of that arc that has sets B5 apart. Characters appearring in season one that have no relevance to anything happening in season one but their role becomes clear in season two or three (often long after you've forgotten who that character was or even that they'd been seen before). Usually you would only recognise how well planned out this was when watching season one for a second or third time.
Most shows, even those with arcs, ret con a history using flash backs or lengthy expositional dialogue. Much like the X Files, Lost made it up on the fly but as the whole premise of Lost worked around flash backs from the start they could get away with this.
Without wanting to get into a "this show is better than that show" nerd fest...Its not so much the arc in itself that set B5 apart. What set it apart from from other arc shows was that it had a predetermined start, middle and end that had been written specifically for a long running TV show.
Carter & co were making up the X Files arc as they went along (not that theres anything wrong with that of course), American Gothic came a couple of years after B5. Roots the tv series was based on the book. Planet of the Apes, Hulk and Fugitive each had a basic theme (the pitch), which isn't the same as a multi layered story arc.
Can anyone think of a pre-B5 series that was written specifically for TV, as a five year series with an already planed out beginning, middle and end?
Not as a five year series, but The Prisoner is another example of an arc series. This one going for 17 episodes.
Apparently so did The Beverly Hillbillies, and I Love Lucy, which go way back.
In fact maybe many comedies and sitcoms worked with story arcs to a greater or lesser extent. Blackadder is one which springs to mind. Especially Blackadder Goes Forth.
How about Red Dwarf?
I agree with you though In that Babylon 5 was plotted as tightly as a novel, and in that it stands out.
But I disagree with people (not you) who make out that story arcs in TV shows are a modern thing that just came about recently and were somehow groundbreaking and innovative..
Not as a five year series, but The Prisoner is another example of an arc series. This one going for 17 episodes.
Apparently so did The Beverly Hillbillies, and I Love Lucy, which go way back.
In fact maybe many comedies and sitcoms worked with story arcs to a greater or lesser extent. Blackadder is one which springs to mind. Especially Blackadder Goes Forth.
How about Red Dwarf?.
None of those were a 5 year (full seasons) epic with a pre-planned begining, middle and end. So despite the quality of the shows you mentioned, none of them can touch B5 in that aspect.
Comments
Sadly i think it arc heavy nature means it's hard for viewers who might miss an important episode to keep up with the show.
The fact that it is station bound rather than exploring on ships upset some traditional trekkies and lastly i think having a black lead at that time might have slightly limited it's popularity.
However more and more people seem to like it now than they did when it originally aired which is great.
No its on Syfy
A popular misconception imo that the first 2 seasons were rubbish,obviously theres a few clunkers but i would also put episodes like Duet,The Nagus and Necessary Evil up with the best ever Trek.
Season 1 - Emissary, Past Prologue, A Man Alone, Dax, The Nagus, Vortex, Battle Lines, Duet, In The Hands Of The Prophets
Season 2 - Cardassians, Necessary Evil, The Alternate, Blood Oath, The Maquis 2 parter, The Wire, Crossover, The Collaborator, Tribunal, The Jem'Hadar
That's not to say there aren't any other good episodes in the first 2 seasons but these episodes are important for the characters backstories and stuff that happens from Season 3 onwards.
don't get me wrong, I agree there are some standout episodes in there, but in general I just didn't enjoy the show as much till season 3 when I felt it started finding it's identity and purpose as a show (imo)
I used to think that - until I watched the entire 7 seasons, and it's now my favourite. And with the introduction of the Defiant, there was plenty of planet movement. But DS9's strength was its character interaction and development and its story arcs, for me.
Totally agree with this.
Jake's friend was Nog, who had more character development - starting off as a snivelling Ferengi troublemaker in Season 1, rising to a Starfleet Lieutenant Junior Grade by the end of Season 7. Compared to say - Harry Kim in Voyager who.....remained an Ensign for the entire seven seasons of Voyager, and, together with Janeway and Chakotay made very little character progress during that time.
It took me a long time to get into DS9, as I agree, it is a series you can't dip in and out of very easily because of the story arcs, but is very fulfilling if you can stick it out.
It always had an identity and purpose. The first two seasons were simply setting the stage. The payoff was the Dominion War. Without the set up it wouldn't have worked.
I agree with you two that the early seasons are more important than they are given credit for,don't get me wrong s4 through s7 were amazing but the first few were good as well.
Considering that DS9 was a shameless copy of Babylon 5 ... its more accurate to say that Babylon 5 was way ahead of its time.
Enjoy them both, but for me Babylon 5 made better use of multi epsiode (and series) arcs.
Wait, what year is it?! For a moment there I thought I was 1995 all over again. Most of us got over that petty argument well over a decade ago.
May be a petty argument, but its unofficially proven (very recently iirc) that DS9 was triggered from Babylon 5.
They're both good series; over the last 6 months I've been going through marathon sessions of watching Enterprise, Voyager (ugh, horrible), DS9 and now TNG. All the Trek series are watchable, and DS9 is without a doubt the best of the bunch. But I still prefer Babylon 5 - just a shame that the Rangers never got completed.
Even if it's true, it really doesn't matter at this point. Both shows got to tell their stories, and both were great. This seemed important to many of us back in the 90s, but today, seriously, who cares?
Plenty of series from the 90s had multi-episode series arcs.
The X Files and American Gothic to name just two.
They were dark in tone and focus too.
In fact Roots from the 70s going further back. Planet of the Apes. There are loads.
Come to think it there are a plethora of TV series who did the multi-episode arc thing. Probably going back to when television began.
"Planet of the Apes" was regular episodic serial TV and, other than the ongoing threat and desire to return home, did not really have an arc. Similar to "The Fugitive" or Bill Bixby's "The Hulk".
Without wanting to get into a "this show is better than that show" nerd fest...Its not so much the arc in itself that set B5 apart. What set it apart from from other arc shows was that it had a predetermined start, middle and end that had been written specifically for a long running TV show.
Carter & co were making up the X Files arc as they went along (not that theres anything wrong with that of course), American Gothic came a couple of years after B5. Roots the tv series was based on the book. Planet of the Apes, Hulk and Fugitive each had a basic theme (the pitch), which isn't the same as a multi layered story arc.
Can anyone think of a pre-B5 series that was written specifically for TV, as a five year series with an already planed out beginning, middle and end?
It's hard to think of one since B5 either. I agree that's more than just having an arc but it's the planning and execution of that arc that has sets B5 apart. Characters appearring in season one that have no relevance to anything happening in season one but their role becomes clear in season two or three (often long after you've forgotten who that character was or even that they'd been seen before). Usually you would only recognise how well planned out this was when watching season one for a second or third time.
Most shows, even those with arcs, ret con a history using flash backs or lengthy expositional dialogue. Much like the X Files, Lost made it up on the fly but as the whole premise of Lost worked around flash backs from the start they could get away with this.
Dear Lord no.
Not as a five year series, but The Prisoner is another example of an arc series. This one going for 17 episodes.
Apparently so did The Beverly Hillbillies, and I Love Lucy, which go way back.
In fact maybe many comedies and sitcoms worked with story arcs to a greater or lesser extent. Blackadder is one which springs to mind. Especially Blackadder Goes Forth.
How about Red Dwarf?
I agree with you though In that Babylon 5 was plotted as tightly as a novel, and in that it stands out.
But I disagree with people (not you) who make out that story arcs in TV shows are a modern thing that just came about recently and were somehow groundbreaking and innovative..
None of those were a 5 year (full seasons) epic with a pre-planned begining, middle and end. So despite the quality of the shows you mentioned, none of them can touch B5 in that aspect.