XPost: alt.startrek, alt.tv.star-trek, alt.tv.star-trek.enterprise   
   From: jrlaredo621@insightbb.com   
      
   Could have been spared all this and been nearly guaranteed a full 7 year run   
   if only they had hired me to give final approval of the scripts.   
      
   "Stan Jensen" wrote in message   
   news:rjdctvgc483h892k3jcnd2joima1hhb6p2@4ax.com...   
   > from DarkHorizons.com   
   >   
   > The talk of ratings and critical disappointment has been pervasive for   
   > some time now on the latest Trek spin-off. Despite its relaunch this   
   > year with a new storyline and purpose which has yielded a better   
   > quality show, ratings sadly haven't reflected it - whilst holding   
   > steady this year they're still far from ideal.   
   >   
   > Then the other day this scoop came in, whilst the news is reasonable   
   > sounding I held off on it to see if I could find out anything   
   > corroborating or would deny its content. So far nothing either way but   
   > I'd thought I'd share it before it pops up somewhere else as 'fact'   
   > when its simply rumour for now:   
   >   
   > "On the Paramount lot this week, a memo was circulated to the   
   > production staff advising them that the current season would be reduced   
   > to 24 shows from 26. This marks the first time in nearly 20 years that   
   > this has occurred for a Trek show; all non-first seasons of all the   
   > existing and previous series have always consisted of 26 shows (except   
   > TNG: Season 2 due to a writers strike).   
   >   
   > Lot talk behind the memo is that next year will be the last season of   
   > "Enterprise". A fourth and final season of 24 shows, which with the   
   > first two seasons total episode count of 52, would fulfill the magic   
   > syndication requirement of 100 total episodes. No word on the future   
   > of the Franchise".   
   >   
   > Thanks to 'Thanksalotrick'.   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   
|