Go back jacking off with a Tribble.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2272456&forum_id=2#23322546)

Fuck you, pal.

The Dominion War arc was brilliant.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2272456&forum_id=2#23323383)

DS9 had the strongest acting ensemble. But the show is still overrated in Trek circles.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2272456&forum_id=2#23324261)

LOL at any poster here who would sit through this turd of an episode.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqY6j3wJlKo

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2272456&forum_id=2#23324205)

EDIT: FUCK you like DS9 too man?!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2272456&forum_id=2#23324218)

The series was just noticeably better than the others. I think normal TV watchers would like it better. More pure Roddenberry Star Trek (peace, love and space adventures)isn't as appealing. Less drama, less character development, everything feels "small" instead of part of a bigger story etc.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2272456&forum_id=2#23324322)

With regard to writing, TNG had a lot of shitty scripts in Seasons 1 and 2 because Gene was being a Nazi with the writing staff. Once Michael Piller took over, the scripts improved and show had a solid run through Season 6. Deep Space Nine started with a good premise and was free of Gene fucking around with the scripts, but they had plenty of duds early on too because they had a lot of derivative, unimaginative scripts, although not quite to the level as Code of Honor. I wonder how much of Seasons 1 and 2 of DS9 you sat through glued to YouTube or elsewhere. It took them about two seasons as well to find their footing.

Characters being interesting is really subjective, but to me the main draws of TNG were Picard (the diplomat captain with a strong character) and Data (non-human niche role that was once filled by Spock). It lacked a true group ensemble like DS9, but the ancillary shticks were Riker (fucked anything that walked), Geordi (ahead-of-his-time exposition of the awkward, nerdy NOWBG), and Worf (Worf gets denied over and over, anyone?). The two major differences are that DS9 had strong, non-annoying women characters and the recurring antagonists, namely Gul Dukat, Damar, and Weyoun, characters that I found more interesting than the main cast with the possible exception of Quark and Garak. TNG had talented guest actors too, but they obviously were not cast in recurring roles save John de Lancie, who was poorly misused on DS9.

The differences with plot arcs and character development are what come with a serial TV series. The Cardassian/Bajoran angle itself wasn't all that interesting to me (especially because the Bajoran terrorists were legitimized so easily and their leaders portrayed as non-corrupt) but it served as a good premise for other issues, such as Federation membership selection and religion/spirituality. I still enjoy Kai Winn and Sisko's mutual loathing of one another and Federation scientific skepticism of the whole prophet deal (Rapture). The Dominion arc(s) were good but really suffered pacing-wise, which I think this is a fair criticism given that it's a serial show.

Production-wise, I think on DS9 the direction was better, mainly because the sets lent themselves for better shots. On the other hand, the music was noticeably worse than TNG Seasons 1-3 and was basically the standard Trek snooze music ever since, which really hurts the atmosphere. I don't think the the differences in specific effects/action matter too much because the subject matter of the show is not dependent on 100% realistic special effects or staging. For example, ground combat in DS9 is stupidly unrealistic but it's presented that way to serve a dramatic purpose.

"Normal" TV watchers might like it better today because generally new TV shows are serial. Also, watching serial shows for the first time online is like popping open a good book. First-run viewing I'd might rather watch DS9. But I've seen it all. I think we disagree in that you probably think the quality of a series is determined by its first-run reception. I rate DS9 based on how I feel about the show today, not how I felt about it when I first watched it. DS9 is a good show, and it's a good show because it is different than other Trek fare. More often than not, the show failed when it tried to be like TNG (Q-Less). We will have to disagree on Roddenberry Trek versus DS9 Trek. I may have agreed with you when I was younger, but now I'm rather cynical about the realism of DS9, which I now find simplistic and unremarkable. In that respect it's worse than TNG. We know TNG represents a fictional, aspirational vision of humanity not yet realized whereas DS9 deludes its viewers into thinking they've become all the wiser for watching character conflict. On DS9 the conflict is not there to be resolved, but rather to be there as dramatic ornamentation, conflict for the sake of conflict, as if the writers want credit for only throwing problems onto the screen. I think the shows are very close in quality but as I've stated, this is an effort to push back against vocal DS9 proponents trolling for "their show."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2272456&forum_id=2#23324599)