XPost: alt.startrek, alt.tv.star-trek, alt.tv.star-trek.enterprise   
   From: anybody@anywhere-anytime.com   
      
   In article <10uuhs3gufhrg6d@corp.supernews.com>, Brian Brady   
    wrote:   
      
   > Anybody wrote:   
   >   
   > > In article , Stan Jensen   
   > >  wrote:   
   > >   
   > >>Moonves: A Break Good For Trek?   
   > >>   
   > >>Leslie Moonves - co-president and co-chief operating officer of Viacom, the   
   > >>parent company of CBS, UPN and Paramount - told SCI FI Wire that it may be   
   > >>time for Star Trek to take a break, though he added that no decision has   
   > >>been made on the future of UPN's ratings-challenged Star Trek: Enterprise.   
   > >>Speaking in an interview at the CBS/UPN winter press tour in West   
   > >>Hollywood, Calif., Moonves said: "It's hard to say right now. The ratings   
   > >>aren't great. It may be a franchise that should be rested a year or two. I   
   > >>know the diehards are not in favor of that, but I think if we rested a year   
   > >>or two, it might be a better thing. But we'll see what happens the rest of   
   > >>the year."   
   > >   
   > >   
   > > I think it's time Star Trek was put out to pasture for EVER. Everything   
   > > must end, and it would have been much better for Star Trek to have   
   > > ended years ago while it was "on top" before being dragged further and   
   > > further down the toilet by the insane inabilities of the non-dynamic   
   > > duo of Beavis & Butthead.  :-(   
   >   
   > Not forever, but I think they should give up on series television for at   
   > least 10 years and concentrate on the movies every two years.   
   >   
   > Then around 2015 take a fresh look at it.   
      
   Well ... according to some calendars the world is supposedly due to end   
   in 2012, so that means Trek will be gone forever.  ;-)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)