I haven't done the math, but I do think the change in tone actually caused it to shed some viewers, yeah. Not completely (competition was definitely part of it, and people stupidly hyped Voyager--a terrible show) and not in a logical sense, but in a knee-jerk emotional one. What makes me think that is not just what it did during those seasons, but how it performed after the fact, after people should have realized "Wow, Voyager is ass" or even after that when it to this day doesn't seem to have the popular following that I feel it would have warranted. It did overall better than Voyager, but not as well as TNG.Uraniun235 wrote:Do you really think that big a proportion of the audience actually cared about the "vision", or even knew what it was? That seems like a pretty generous estimation of the number of Trekkies out there.Covenant wrote:I love DS9 and it did not do nearly as well as it should because people complain it wasn't "True To The Vision."
It could be that DS9 never got as many viewers because it was always another Star Trek show - it ran alongside TNG and then Voyager and never got as heavily promoted by Paramount. It was also in competition with Babylon 5.
That's not really the biggest point though: people do criticize a spinoff for changing tone, and eventually it'll find it's own viewer base who are comfortable with it. There's a lot of howling from the fanbase for a lot of different reasons. I defend the show's change in tone, just not all their writing or the choices they've made as to the characters. That doesn't mean I'll watch it, but there's certainly nothing wrong with going darker, having their crew be made of B-Team members, or having a lot of normal emotional moments. It's more the way they've chosen to highlight these.