XPost: alt.startrek, alt.tv.star-trek, alt.tv.star-trek.enterprise
From: newman1@nj.rr.com
On Thu, 13 May 2004 20:10:25 GMT, Stan Jensen
wrote:
>Is Star Trek Over?
>
>A third year of shrinking audiences for UPN's Star Trek: Enterprise means
>potential cancellation, which would make the 2004-'05 season the first in
>17 years without a first-run Star Trek series, USA Today reported. Coupled
>with the poor box-office return for 2002's feature film Star Trek: Nemesis,
>fans of the Paramount franchise face the prospect of no new Star Trek on
>the near horizon for the first time in a quarter-century, the newspaper
>reported.
>
>Longtime Trek executive producer Rick Berman remains sanguine about an
>Enterprise renewal. "Right now, I'm optimistic the show is going to be
>picked up for a fourth season," Berman told the newspaper. But, he added,
>"as to whether [the franchise] could use a rest for a while, that's a valid
>question. I think, eventually, Star Trek will be taking a breather."
>
>UPN likely won't reveal Enterprise's fate until it announces its fall slate
>next week. Viewership is off 43 percent from its first season, and the
>series suffered its lowest-rated regularly scheduled original episode in
>April (2.9 million), the newspaper reported.
>
>Berman and two other producers also are in "very early discussions" about
>another Star Trek feature film. It would be a prequel, but not related to
>Enterprise, he said.
Even if "Enterprise" is not renewed, that doesn't necessarily mean
Star Trek is "over." I'm sure the suits at Paramount will dredge it up
again at some point.
Apropos of Berman's acknowledging that maybe Star Trek needs a
breather, what might that mean in the event "Enterprise" lasts the
(seemingly) requisite seven years? There won't be a Star Trek series
on the air immediately afterward, and no overlapping like TNG/DS9 and
DS9/VOY?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
