Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
General Trek
»
Star Trek 2000 - Live Long and Fester?
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Elim Garak: [QB] First of Two has voiced my main thoughts on this already: [QUOTE]I STILL say the the primary reason Voyager's ratings are low is because it's shown on so few stations, not the other way around. I think it was a height in hubris to start a network that was essentially based around one show, moreover a network that was only accessible on a few stations (Voyager around where I live is ONLY visible to people with cable, the nearest station is too far away for anything but the fuzziest snow-picture. I can't watch THAT, can I?)[/QUOTE] If you look at all the factors against Voyager, it looks pretty good that they get the ratings they do... And Kosh said it for me, too: [QUOTE]Voyager suffers from being on UPN, a network that covers little of the country. I think it's ratings would be similar to DS9's if Voyager had been in syndication. I'll grant you that that's way down from TNG, but they would still be respectable.[/QUOTE] (Although some of TNG's seventh-season ratings could be low enough to overcome.) And I have a question: Why is it when people come down on DS9 and Voyager, that people like Fabrux and I "have our knickers in a knot" (or whatever expression you choose to use) because we happen to like all four series; and yet the people who blast the shows for not "being Star Trek" never "have their knickers in a knot"? I've noticed this at the Trek BBS, too. Just my thought for the day. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3