TOS/TNG vs. DS9/VOY/ENT

[Dark Reality 0]

A point was raised in another thread that I wanted to start a new discussion on. The point was that TNG's ratings were higher than DS9, VOY, and ENT because of the other sci-fi shows out after TNG, where TNG was pretty much alone.

 

It would seem to me that Star Trek and Star Wars started out pretty codependent. I'm not sure what, if any, science fiction came before Star Trek TOS, but I know of a few that were out around the same time. Twilight Zone, Lost In Space... Outer Limits? At any rate, ST:TOS pretty much rose above them. Were it not for the success of TOS, I wonder if Star Wars would have been made. I believe that the success of TOS, the audience being so receptive to a story about futuristic space travel and space war that Lucas was able to sell Star Wars. Then after Star Wars came out, the Star Trek films started coming out. As a series, Trek was just TOS and TAS (the cartoon), but shortly after the first Star Wars trilogy, TNG came out, in the 1980s when sci-fi was pretty much dominated by Star Wars and Star Trek.

 

Then as TNG came to an end, we started seeing a lot of sci-fi, like it came back. Babylon 5, Stargate (the movie... the series came a bit later), and later, the new Star Wars trilogy. So when Deep Space Nine and Voyager came out, they sort of got lost in the shuffle, at least with many viewers.

 

Should there have been more time between TNG and DS9? If DS9, VOY, and ENT hadn't happened, and the TNG movies had just come out, I think DS9 would be very appropriate for current events. The Cardassian occupation of Bajor, the Bajorans throwing out the Cardassians, and the Federation coming in to help the provisional government get its bearings, and uneasiness on all sides. I think it would be abstract but relevant amidst the events in Iraq.

 

There was no hurry for Voyager, in my opinion. DS9 was special, in that it was on a space station, that the Federation isn't *really* in control, and you have the greater mix of races. Plus the whole back story with the Bajoran/Cardassian dispute, the Bajoran religion, and later (stuff I haven't seen yet), the Dominion, Marquis, etc. But starting up right after TNG, I think Paramount sold DS9 (and Voyager) short. TNG was so far after TOS that it was OK that everything was different... it was a new series, a new generation. DS9 seemed to be presented as a Star Trek knockoff, a side story that they threw in to keep the franchise going. (I feel it's more than that, but I also feel they could have timed them better.) Then, before DS9 ends, they toss Voyager out there. Voyager would also have been a lot better, had it been given its space.

 

What do you think?

[TransporterMalfunction 1]

I agree that there was too much Trek (especially when we had two shows running at the same time). Personally I never really liked DS9 or Voyager, of course I have probably seen all the episodes and can enjoy them on the odd occasion but for me they do not get be excited to watch them like I was for TOS and TNG. Enterprise was a return to form and gave me that excitement back, it was a great series that was more in tune with the classic series but sadly I think the fanbase had become adjusted to the style of later shows like DS9 and Voyager, which is why there was a section of fandom who disliked it.

[VaBeachGuy 12]

Personally I never really liked DS9

347948[/snapback]

 

Blasphemy!

 

[TransporterMalfunction 1]

Personally I never really liked DS9

347948[/snapback]

 

Blasphemy!

 

347954[/snapback]

 

 

Well it has grown on me a bit. I like Garek and of course the show improved drastically with the introduction of Worf.

 

Voyager was just rubbish though. Give me Enterprise any day!

[Dark Reality 0]

Now the last reply I strongly disagree with (but won't hold it against you). I loved Voyager, and I'm beginning to like DS9 just as much. And I couldn't get through the first episode of ENT. But then, I'm not fond at all of TOS, an opinion I know I share with very few others (yourself included judging by your avatar).

 

TOS and TNG had a different approach than DS9 and VOY. The former were exploration missions. The Federation flagships, NCC-1701 and -D, both designated Enterprise, on missions of pure exploration. That was the story, and it was very open. Voyager had a specific point from the beginning, and its finale pretty firmly ended it. DS9 was a little more open than Voyager, but more focused (on Bajor).

 

I didn't mean to set up a debate comparing them, though I suppose the title implies otherwise. But I think TOS and TNG had the unfair advantage that they got to define their generation. DS9 and Voyager pretty much exist within the TNG generation. They're both set far from the Federation, so there's that level of newness, but TOS was pretty much completely original, and TNG was completely redone for a new generation. Had DS9 and VOY been given proper space, their own generation, I believe they would have more respect in general. For example, we should have just started DS9 a few years ago. When DS9 would end, there would have been 11-12 Star Trek movies (the newest being purely TNG movies) and DS9 would finish with a DS9 movie, then a few movies with TNG/DS9, maybe something new.... and way up in 2009-2011, Voyager would start as its own generation. Having both series already released already, it doesn't seem so good, but I think Paramount could have done better by Trek and for Trekkers by stretching it after TNG.

[HRH The KING 0]

This is how it should have happened:

 

1987: TNG begins.

 

1993: DS9 begins.

 

1994: TNG ends, GEN does not happen.

 

1995: VOY does not happen.

 

1996: First Contact

 

1998: INS does not happen.

 

1999: DS9 ends.

 

2000: A TNG mirror universe movie. The last TNG movie.

 

2002: NEM does not happen.

 

2004: ENT begins. With Behr, Moore, and Piller as the creative heads. Braga is not involved. Berman remains as producer only with no creative say. It is on either CBS or First Run syndication with a huge blaze of publicity. Better characters and stories are developed. The show would be dark and mature. Nothing like what it actually was. Completely different.

 

2011: ENT ends.

Edited August 18, 2005 by HRH The KING

[krysis 2]

I can't say I didn't like VOY or ENT or DS9.... What I can say is that I enjoyed them all, regardless of when they came on screen. Its just that I enjoyed TOS and TNG more than DS9... which is more than VOY which is more than ENT. In a mathematical equation, it would be like this:

 

I like TOS > TNG > DS9 > VOY > ENT

 

What's done is done. I think Trek would do better in the next series after they make the fans starve a couple of year. Come to think of it, how did 007 movies survive so long? Its probably the only other movie-series that is older than Trek and has more movies than Trek.

 

**wonders, "What in the world am I blabbering about?"**

[Matt 0]

It wasn't like that over here. We've never had more than one new series of Star Trek playing at the same time. At the moment yes there are two series running in syndication together but that's different obviously. I can imagine the problems it would have had the way they aired in the U.S. though. I think they should have had a break between DS9 and Voyager over there. I loved DS9 and when it came out first I liked Voyager, not that big a fan of it anymore (the stories are weak compared to DS9 and don't really stand well in repeat viewing). A longer break would have made people hungery for more Trek and they might have appreciated it more.

[krysis 2]

I've heard of the no-carb-diet. Has anyone heard of a no-trek-diet?

[Susan_Delgado 0]

but sadly I think the fanbase had become adjusted to the style of later shows like DS9 and Voyager, which is why there was a section of fandom who disliked it.

347948[/snapback]

 

I never thought that DS9 and Voyager were anything alike stylistically. DS9 featured a continuing saga of religious and political intrigue, plus a war that dominated the latter half of the series. Voyager was episodic with a little T & A thrown in (Where did they find those bras for Jeri Ryan .... yowsa! I'd buy one tomorrow if I could find one.)

 

How do you feel that DS9 and Voyager's styles were similar? Perhaps I am missing something .

[VaBeachGuy 12]

How do you feel that DS9 and Voyager's styles were similar?  Perhaps I am missing something .

348055[/snapback]

THe only comparison that I would make between DS9 and Voyager would be that Voyager was a 7 year arc as was DS9. Voyager was much more episodic then DS9 but Voyager had the overall theme (arc) of striving to get back to the Alpha Quadrant. I believe that it's because they (TPTB) completed that arc that Voyager will never have a movie. If they had left that arc unresolved then there would be a reason to make one.

[TransporterMalfunction 1]

but sadly I think the fanbase had become adjusted to the style of later shows like DS9 and Voyager, which is why there was a section of fandom who disliked it.

347948[/snapback]

 

I never thought that DS9 and Voyager were anything alike stylistically. DS9 featured a continuing saga of religious and political intrigue, plus a war that dominated the latter half of the series. Voyager was episodic with a little T & A thrown in (Where did they find those bras for Jeri Ryan .... yowsa! I'd buy one tomorrow if I could find one.)

 

How do you feel that DS9 and Voyager's styles were similar? Perhaps I am missing something :P .

348055[/snapback]

 

I think it is because in DS9 and Voyager we started to get the feel that characterisation was more important than story. The stories were more internal, but of course this seems to be a modern trend highlighted by such shows as Buffy...

 

Other shows such as TOS (my favourite) had character evolution but it was very subtle and the focus was more on the new kind of threat the crew were facing each week. The characters served the plot instead of the plot serving the characters.

[Susan_Delgado 0]

^^Gotcha. I can see that.

 

But being a life-long soap opera addict (night time and day time!), I do prefer character-driven over the long haul.

[Takara_Soong 4]

I think it is because in DS9 and Voyager we started to get the feel that characterisation was more important than story. The stories were more internal, but of course this seems to be a modern trend highlighted by such shows as Buffy...

 

Other shows such as TOS (my favourite) had character evolution but it was very subtle and the focus was more on the new kind of threat the crew were facing each week. The characters served the plot instead of the plot serving the characters.

348074[/snapback]

 

I think the trend towards characterisation started around season 3 of TNG. I can remember an interview with I think Michael Piller where he talked about TNG getting away from the "alien of the week" episodes of season 1. Personally, I've always thought of TNG as being a character driven series that didn't need to introduce a new threat or disaster every week to be interesting or relevant.

[VaBeachGuy 12]

I think the trend towards characterisation started around season 3 of TNG. I can remember an interview with I think Michael Piller where he talked about TNG getting away from the "alien of the week" episodes of season 1. Personally, I've always thought of TNG as being a character driven series that didn't need to introduce a new threat or disaster every week to be interesting or relevant.

348301[/snapback]

TNG did develope it's characters to an extent, as did Voyager but I don't believe that either of them did as good a job as DS9 did in that category. Specific examples would be the 3 TNG characters that were also DS9 characters.

 

We knew Miles, Keiko and Worf in TNG and got to know Worf pretty well but Keiko and Miles not so well. Of course they weren't "main" characters so that's not unusual. Worf's background was done pretty well but once he got to DS9 we got to know him so much better. Miles and Keiko also, especially Miles. I think the fact that DS9 was "stationary" it required the writers to write more 'personal' stories about the characters while the TNG and Voyager writers had the weekly 'adventure' to fall back on.

 

If DS9 had been a "Ship Show" we wouldn't have had nearly the amount of Miles and Julian interactions, I doubt we'd have gotten the Worf/Jadzia relationship and the Odo/Kira relationship. I also don't think we'd have gotten Vic, which would be a tragic loss. Vic was a great addition to the series, I only wish it had happened earlier like in the 4th season.

 

Anyway, those are my ramblings on the subject lol.

[Data 0]

My wife calls DS9, As the Space Station Turns, because of all the love interests. It makes her think of Soap Operas. :P

[Dark Reality 0]

I kinda got to thinking of Voyager as a soap-opera having watched it all the way through. And the scene with Neelix watching soaps as they were monitoring the planet's news for sightings of the crew showed that the producers, or as is commonly said around here, TPTB, thought so too. They're all soap-operas and dramas IMHO, just with a science-fiction theme.

 

DS9 and Voyager did both go for an even seven years, but so did TNG. TOS didn't because it was only a five-year mission, and ENT didn't because it was cancelled. I think if ENT weren't cancelled, it would only run for seven seasons. Personally I think Voyager could have gone on longer; the ending was just too abrupt. If they could have kept coming up with original plots, they could have run Voyager into its next generation, killing off the original crew or most of it of old age, and having Naomi Wildman and the hypothetical child of Seven and Chakotay running the ship as late-teens or adults. I haven't seen all of DS9 (yet) so I can't comment on whether it could have gone on longer.

 

@Susan D. -- I agree about DS9, that's why I'm lovin it. The whole thing about the Bajoran religion, the conflict between the Bajorans and the Cardassians (was either race used before DS9?), and what I know is coming up: Worf, and the Dominion War. Oh, and about Seven... she probably just wore a size or two too small. That's what they do for that effect, or so I'm told. :P

[TransporterMalfunction 1]

I think it is because in DS9 and Voyager we started to get the feel that characterisation was more important than story. The stories were more internal, but of course this seems to be a modern trend highlighted by such shows as Buffy...

 

Other shows such as TOS (my favourite) had character evolution but it was very subtle and the focus was more on the new kind of threat the crew were facing each week. The characters served the plot instead of the plot serving the characters.

348074[/snapback]

 

I think the trend towards characterisation started around season 3 of TNG. I can remember an interview with I think Michael Piller where he talked about TNG getting away from the "alien of the week" episodes of season 1. Personally, I've always thought of TNG as being a character driven series that didn't need to introduce a new threat or disaster every week to be interesting or relevant.

348301[/snapback]

 

I agree completely. TNG started the trend to some degree, and that is why I like the earlier seasons better than the later ones. With the later seasons we did see characterisation coming to the forefront but there was still a good majority of monster of the week stories to keep you going, even some of the stories that were clearly geared up to evolve a character had strong plots beyond that intention, of course others didn't and the number of these per season seemed to increase as time went on.

 

With the later shows I always got the feeling that characterisation (or overt characterisation) overtook the need for a story behind that on occasions and therefore weaker plots beyond that of characterisation seemed to be more and more frequent. That's why I liked Enterprise so much (and likely why others disliked it) because we saw a move away from the precedence characterisation in stories and saw a more classic format.

 

On a more positive note, one of my favourite stories from DS9 was the one where Worf and Martok are trapped in a prison and forced to fight with each other. That was a story that developed character but it also had a strong adventure plot as well. Can't remember the name of the episode at the moment.

[Susan_Delgado 0]

On a more positive note, one of my favourite stories from DS9 was the one where Worf and Martok are trapped in a prison and forced to fight with each other. That was a story that developed character but it also had a strong adventure plot as well. Can't remember the name of the episode at the moment.

348456[/snapback]

 

:P "In Purgatory's Shadow" and "By Inferno's Light" .... Season 5.

 

I think that two-parter is probably my favorite episode of the whole series. I like it even more than "In the Pale Moonlight" from Season 6.

[VaBeachGuy 12]

I like it even more than "In the Pale Moonlight" from Season 6.

348472[/snapback]

Blasphemy!

 

 

 

 

lol

[xenexian 2]

A great question. Was it too much of a good thing, too clumped together? Very possibly but I also know that once you get certain creative juices flowing, it's very difficult to turn them off. I do think DS9 did come around at precisely the right time and even though it was underappreciated at it's premier, it had grown steadily into the most intelligent of the Star Trek Series and the best. My own personal belief as to why there were so many at one time, includiing movies, comes from my experience in dealing with producers and writers and the people who hold the purse strings, and that is that everyone at Paramount who were in charge of the Star Trek division became greedy. The old, "if they love that they're going to love this" mentality reared it's ugly head. Like everything else today, windows of opportunity are very fickle and no one knows for certain how long they remain open. The opportunity to take advantage of the high interest and flood the market was just too tempting. The downside to all this is that the average tv viewer couldn't care less and became jaded, especially after some other series debuted at the same time, some successful, some not. There is also the old "how many different ways can we tell the same story" aspect as well. Even I admit that some plot lines on all the series were strangly familiar to stories I have seen elsewhere and caused me to lose interest. As King illustrated in his make believe timeline, the serie(s) could have stretched well into the next decade but I'm sure that the investors of Paramount would have none of that. The attitude of "what have you done for me lately", holds too much sway there and returns on investments are more important to them then trying to maintain a long term series run for what is really a small segment of their audience. The producers took their orders from TPTB, produced tons of material for distribution, ran with it for as long as they could and gave them some very nice returns but not enough to maintain it as we would all like. Profits are what matters in the world of TV production and if there is no profit, there is no longer any shows. Paramount would make the Ferengis very proud. I'm just glad that I was there to witness it all.