XPost: alt.startrek, alt.tv.star-trek, alt.tv.star-trek.enterprise
From: bogusname@nj.rr.com
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:06:34 +1300, Anybody
wrote:
>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. ;-)
Do you know what day?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
