XPost: rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.sf.tv, alt.tv.stargate-sg1   
   XPost: uk.media.tv.misc   
   From: stocksami@earthlink.net   
      
   Obveeus wrote:   
   > "David Johnston"  wrote in message   
   > news:7ct2i5pbav80ug7bu9cfk2niuudc135h91@4ax.com...   
   >> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 08:46:50 -0500, "Obveeus"  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> "Professor Bubba"  wrote:   
   >>>> Just for the record, Star Trek was never canceled during its first two   
   >>>> seasons.  It was on the bubble both times.  The fan campaigns persuaded   
   >>>> the network to renew it both times, even though the show never placed   
   >>>> higher than 52nd for the week in the Nielsens.   
   >>> Never better than 52nd?  but...but...people said it was a successful show.   
   >> Successful by what standard?   
   >   
   > By what standard would not making the Top50 shows be considered a success?   
   > ...and this was back when there were only 3 networks.   
   >   
   > Star Trek was not successful in its original run.  It became successful   
   > later through syndication.   
   >   
   >   
      
   ST:TOS has mainly standalone episodes which work well in syndication.   
      
   That's one of the big drawbacks for producing a series that has a strong   
   story arc.  They're good for selling DVDs, but they don't work all that   
   well in syndication.  Shows with mainly standalone episodes work better   
   for syndication.  I like story arcs.  I think the producers of SG1 did a   
   good job of mixing the 2 approaches.  I can't imagine Lost being   
   syndicated.  A big part of the attraction is the slow reveal of info and   
   teasing about future happenings.  A viewer just happening across one   
   episode in the middle of the arc would probably not enjoy it all that much.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)