XPost: rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.sf.tv, alt.tv.stargate-sg1   
   XPost: uk.media.tv.misc   
   From: Obveeus@aol.com   
      
   "Legend-11"  wrote:   
      
   > Obveeus wrote:   
   >> "Mac Breck"  wrote in message   
   >> news:3eudnfApUNNmtI7WnZ2dnUVZ_qGdnZ2d@supernews.com...   
   >>> Keith wrote:   
   >>>> All:   
   >>>>  Star Trek did OK in it's first year Thursdays at 8:30pm and was   
   >>>> moved to Fridays at 8:30pm for it's second season.  There, it bombed   
   >>>> and was saved by a huge letter writing campaign. For it's third   
   >>>> season, it was put on Fridays at 10pm and that sunk it even further.   
   >>> So, when Fridays at 8:30PM gets numbers sufficient to allow TPTB to kill   
   >>> a show, and the fans speak out to rescue it, go deeper on Fridays to get   
   >>> the justification for the kill.  Check.   
   >>   
   >> No 'justification' was needed.  The original Star Trek had low TV ratings   
   >> and was cancelled for having those low ratings.  People trying to claim   
   >> that the original series was a ratings success are simply wrong.   
   >   
   > If it had low ratings, it wouldn't have got past the first season.   
      
   It had mediocre ratings so it was moved off to a less desirable timeslot,   
   same thing happens with shows on TV today.  If it had great ratings, it   
   would not have been dumped to the lesser timeslot.  the claim that it was   
   dumped to a bad timeslot in order to achieve a reason to cancel it is   
   without merit.  No such 'justification' was needed.   
      
   > You're wrong.   
      
   No, I am not.   
      
   > Also, don't make the mistake of comparing apples and oranges. A sci-fi   
   > show, especially a ground-breaking one, would not get the ratings a show   
   > the whole family could enjoy would. So, for a show that was *so* different   
   > to what people were used to, those ratings were excellent.   
      
   Ok...ratings were 'excellent', for the kind of show that wasn't going to do   
   much better than mediocre because of its genre.  Is that really a point   
   worth making?   
      
   > THAT is why it was renewed the second time. They went down from there   
   > through meddling execs, as a number of people have already told you.   
      
   Star Trek didn't attract enough viewers, so it was cancelled.  Star trek was   
   not a Gilligan's Island or Beverly Hillbillies type of success that got   
   cancelled for other reasons.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)