UPN, Enterprise, and the Ratings

[HRH The KING 0]

Hey, it lasted 4 seasons. That is not exactly a failure. It lasted one year longer than the original series.

 

Yeah, but the Original Series was cancelled because NBC had no idea what the heck the show was about. It was very much an area of fiction rarely seen on television at that point in time.

[Data 0]

Hey, it lasted 4 seasons. That is not exactly a failure. It lasted one year longer than the original series.

 

Yeah, but the Original Series was cancelled because NBC had no idea what the heck the show was about. It was very much an area of fiction rarely seen on television at that point in time.

301031[/snapback]

 

That is true. It is interesting to note that a small local channel in Philly (Kaiser Broadcasting, who no longer exists) knew exactly where to place the show. 6:00 PM on weekdays. It's ratings hit the roof. I believe UPN also does not know what to do with Enterprise. Although, I do believe The Original Series had the best writing of all the Treks.

[HRH The KING 0]

Well, Paramount know what to do with ENT now, they've cancelled it, but I know what you mean. They did schedule it at poor timeslots, but honestly, if it were of a high enough standard of quality, a large amount of people would have tuned in regardless and they would have moved it to a better time. It was moved most likely as a result of poor ratings, the timeslot move was certainly not the the cause of the low viewing figures.

 

But I agree, TOS certainly had better writing and much deeper, richer characters. The central trio of Kirk/Bones/Spock was wonderful, and that continued into the movies too.

[Takara_Soong 4]

They did schedule it at poor timeslots, but honestly, if it were of a high enough standard of quality, a large amount of people would have tuned in regardless and they would have moved it to a better time. It was moved most likely as a result of poor ratings, the timeslot move was certainly not the the cause of the low viewing figures.

301036[/snapback]

 

I really don't think you understand what's happening at UPN. Some UPN affiliates air Enterprise in its Friday night timeslot, some don't. Some only show it on the weekend, some on other weeknights, some in the middle of night. Only the Friday night viewers are counted in the ratings. That is why they are skewed. If all UPN affiliates ran it when it should we might have a better picture of things. We would have an even better picture if UPN reached the same number of households as other networks. I've read that approximately 90 million Americans don't even have access to it. UPN has 40 less stations airing their programming than CBS. Three states do not have UPN affiliates.

[HRH The KING 0]

I really don't think you understand what's happening at UPN.

 

Yes I do. They broadcast a TV show called "Star Trek: Enterprise", but only a small amount of viewers watched the show. It started strong but lost a great deal of it's viewers and suffered it's worst ever ratings in it's fourth season. So Paramount decided to cancel the show.

 

That's pretty much what happened.

 

It's not really a question of timeslots, which network it was broadcast on, schedules, promotion, access to UPN, ratings systems etc etc...and all the other excuses that are offered. The fact is this....the show was not good enough to attract a significant audience and was cancelled. That's simply the reality of the whole situation.

[Sam The Smuggler 1]

Again, I Agree With The King And I Like Enterprsie.

 

I'd Love To See These Plotlines Resolved. I'd Love To See Enterprise Last 7 Years Or More And I'll Miss It When It's Gone, But I Do Accept That The Ratings Just Didn't Add Up...True There Were Several Factors In This, But The Fact Remain...The Ratings We're Up To The Standards Of Keeping It On The Air.

 

That Didn't Stop Me Signing The Petition Though

[Jack_Bauer 1]

I really don't think you understand what's happening at UPN.

 

Yes I do. They broadcast a TV show called "Star Trek: Enterprise", but only a small amount of viewers watched the show. It started strong but lost a great deal of it's viewers and suffered it's worst ever ratings in it's fourth season. So Paramount decided to cancel the show.

 

That's pretty much what happened.

 

It's not really a question of timeslots, which network it was broadcast on, schedules, promotion, access to UPN, ratings systems etc etc...and all the other excuses that are offered. The fact is this....the show was not good enough to attract a significant audience and was cancelled. That's simply the reality of the whole situation.

301135[/snapback]

You really don't get it.

A small amount of measured viewers watched the show in its regular time slot but due the high amount of preemption and the overall low penetration of the network, the ratings for the regular time slot cannot be considered an accurate measure of how many people saw the show. Just because only 3 million people watched at one time doesn't mean only 3 million saw it that week or that only 3 million people wanted to see it.

As for the premiere it was highly promoted but subsequent shows were not. Granted not all these shows were creative brilliant but they had little promotion and were constantly shifted around in favour of sports, something the creative side could not control.

Even a show as good as DS9 would have had bad ratings if was only measured in a bad time slot on a bad network and was shifted around with little promotion. However, DS9 was syndicated front end which allowed to be seen at many different times and not measured by one particular time.

 

I will admit that Enterprise was creatively weak in its first few years but I will never admit that weakness is solely responsible for the show's cancellation.

[HRH The KING 0]

Click For Spoiler

You really don't get it.

 

I do, I really honestly do.

 

Just because only 3 million people watched at one time doesn't mean only 3 million saw it that week or that only 3 million people wanted to see it.

 

It's not just "one time". Since the first episode ratings have been consistantly disappointing. Lower than any Trek show previously. NEM was the lowest drawing movie in Trek history, so all of this points to fundamental problems in the creative side of Trek. Not just limited to ENT.

 

As for the premiere it was highly promoted but subsequent shows were not. Granted not all these shows were creative brilliant but they had little promotion and were constantly shifted around in favour of sports, something the creative side could not control.

 

If twelve million people watched the first show. I'm pretty certain they knew that more shows would follow on the same channel. As for promotion, it doesn't take much effort to check a TV guide to see what time the show is on and on what day. If the show was moved around, which does often happen with TV shows in the UK in particular, then it's even more essential that the creative side is rock solid because the viewer will make an effort to catch the show.

 

Even a show as good as DS9 would have had bad ratings if was only measured in a bad time slot on a bad network and was shifted around with little promotion. However, DS9 was syndicated front end which allowed to be seen at many different times and not measured by one particular time.

 

I understand that. It was poor decision making from Paramount in regards to many things, including scheduling. Deep Space Nine had the advantage of being syndicated, but then again, it also IMO had the advantage of being superbly written.

 

I will admit that Enterprise was creatively weak in its first few years but I will never admit that weakness is solely responsible for the show's cancellation. 

 

I never said it was solely responsible for the end of that show, but it was the biggest factor. That, in addition to other lesser factors result in failure. Paramount eventually realised there was very little point in continuing a show that was basically a lost cause and mercifully ended it before it damaged it's premier franchise beyond all repair.

[Angela 1]

look the ratings system is like this they take a snap shot of the first ever run of an episode of televeision and say that is how many people total watched. What they don't recognise in the case of UPN are the channels that won't show first runs at the same times as the network plays it unlike other networks tUPN doesn't have that type of contract, so their ratings are actually askew from the fact that there is a lot more people watching who won't be taken into consideration because the system is messed up.

[HRH The KING 0]

Look, if you want to believe that ENT failed because the ratings systems were not accurate, then so be it. If you apply that logic consistently, then I could say "Well, if the ratings system is flawed, then maybe twelve million people DIDN'T watch the pilot episode. Maybe the show ALWAYS had low ratings?"

 

I don't personally believe that is wise because doing so gives you this false idea that "Hey, ENT was a good show, but the ratings system just didn't know how many people loved it".

 

Doing that takes your attention away from the real cause of ENT's failure...

 

Poor creative direction and leadership of the franchise from Rick Berman and Brannon Braga.

 

AND

 

Neglect and poor decision making from Paramount.

[Jack_Bauer 1]

Another reason for the big pilot rating is the 'big episode factor'. Most notably with TNG and VGR, a lot of people would only tune in for the premieres and finales which is likely the reason for Enterprise's spectacular premiere. However without promotion people don't know when the finale and other subsequent premieres and finales aired.

 

You also made a point about how where was Enterprise's creativity in its first few years (roughly half of a seven year run). Well, no Star Trek series (except TOS) can claim that its strong creative years were in its front end. And now Enterprise has been cut off as it is just hitting its creative stride and when it could be about to break through with syndication and DVD releases.

 

You can go on thinking that it's mostly the fault of the creativite side, King but I'm telling you no amount of creativity can overcome the obstacles which were placed in Enterprise's way.

[HRH The KING 0]

Click For Spoiler

However without promotion people don't know when the finale and other subsequent premieres and finales aired.

 

Yeah, but even if they only tuned into the premieres and finales, it still meant that they weren't watching all the episodes inbetween. Which still results in low ratings.

 

Well, no Star Trek series (except TOS) can claim that its strong creative years were in its front end. And now Enterprise has been cut off as it is just hitting its creative stride and when it could be about to break through with syndication and DVD releases.

 

I don't think it will be as popular through syndication as it's supporters think. TNG started slow, but quickly found it's feet and after the first few episodes had begun to develop into the brilliant show it would be remembered as.

 

IMO Deep Space Nine pretty much right from the start was superb. I personally think it came together more quickly than any other Trek show in history.

 

You can go on thinking that it's mostly the fault of the creativite side, King but I'm telling you no amount of creativity can overcome the obstacles which were placed in Enterprise's way.

 

I think the obstacles you describe were smaller than you may think. "The Formation Of The Federation" and "The First Voyages Into Deep Space Exploration" should have made for a good show. Unfortunately, weak characters, plots, stories, writing, settings, the gratuitous material, and just a general feeling of staleness brought the show down. It's a shame, but it's done now.

Edited February 6, 2005 by The King

[Angela 1]

your last point king was bang on, the market wasn't aware of the show.

 

they should have had perhaps better writers, but I haven't seen the fourth season (from my perspective neither have you king, you live in the UK as do I) I also hadn't seen the latter part of the 3rd season, just because I was buy, I used to tape but didn't, I guess I had a apathy to it. but I am saddened to see the era die as it has.

[HRH The KING 0]

Just wait for the next era of Trek.

 

Once we've removed Berman and Braga and Paramount sort out the creative and structure side, it'll be awesome.

 

 

When I see something like "Smallville" (which IMO is quite superb) and I notice the absolute reverence that the writers have for the material they are basing the show on, I think "I wish writer had that kind of respect for Star Trek these days".

Edited February 6, 2005 by The King

[Angela 1]

I just want these threads to be a wake of sorts and that will allow people to move on.

[HRH The KING 0]

Well, you can't let it get too depressing, otherwise the whole site will become too bleak and miserable.

 

 

Hey!!!!, here's something positive that I will remember ENT for. It had one superb looking starship. I loved the NX-01. Excellent design IMO:

 

Edited February 6, 2005 by The King

[Angela 1]

my enduring memory is Trip tucker and Malcolm Reed :) :)

[HRH The KING 0]

Well, Connor Trinneer is generally a likable actor. In some ways he reminds me of Robert Duncan McNeill who was always a highlight of VOY. In fact, McNeill was one of the reasons VOY wasn't a complete loss, along with Jeri Ryan and the awesome Robert Picardo.

 

Dominic Keating seems like a nice guy too, but I'm sick of seeing British characters on TV in the "Cheerio, Old Chap" stereotype.

[gul_nodrog 2]

IMO Deep Space Nine pretty much right from the start was superb. I personally think it came together more quickly than any other Trek show in history.[/b]

301174[/snapback]

 

I think you are right on the mark with this ... DS9 characters were almost instantly a cohesive group. The stories were well written from the beginning, the acting was excellent. Do you think this had something to do with how well TNG was being done at the point of DS9's beginning? Perhaps because everything was clicking so well over there, the writers/producers knew exactly how to do it on DS9?

 

Tom Paris and the Doctor were the best parts of Voyager. Janeway and Chakotay were good as well. There were other members of the crew I didn't like so much. Not so on DS9 ... I liked the entire main cast and all of the supplementary characters from the beginning. I didn't care much for Quark at first, though. It is only since we've purchased the entire run of the series that we've come to love him almost as much as Sisko!

 

 

When I see something like "Smallville" (which IMO is quite superb) and I notice the absolute reverence that the writers have for the material they are basing the show on, I think "I wish writer had that kind of respect for Star Trek these days".

301174[/snapback]

 

Amen to that. Why can't we have someone at the helm of the Star Trek franchise who actually loves the material and is showing an appropriate level of respect for the fans? "Reverence" is a strong term, but an apt one .... the entire bunch of folks working on LOTR showed reverence for the Tolkien material. Why can't we Trek fans have that same experience?

 

UPN stinks and has a very limited viewing public to begin with. As has been said, it's not even available in several states and not part of the cable line-up in many places where it is available! Stupid. As long as Star Trek is hitched to this substandard network and continues to muddle along with its current "leaders" we are not going to be seeing any good new Trek anytime soon.

 

Poor Enterprise. Poor Star Trek. Poor us. :)

Edited February 8, 2005 by gul_nodrog

[HRH The KING 0]

*** WARNING ***

 

OK people, this is a BLUE warning. Very different to a RED warning which signifies that a post that follows it is potentially offensive or upsetting to those of a nervous disposition. Now what a BLUE warning means in His Royal Highness The King's "disclaimer" system is that the following post is very long.

 

Click For Spoiler

Do you think this had something to do with how well TNG was being done at the point of DS9's beginning?

 

I think it certainly helped. But also, the background for the show was superbly researched. I actually have a book which details pretty much every aspect to the creation of Deep Space Nine. The amount of thought that Michael Piller put into the creation of the show was extraordinary. Rick Berman too, for his credit was very creative back then and took a risk with DS9 that paid off, unfortunately, in 1994 it all started breaking down for him, with the terrible ST: Generations. Then it got worse when VOY was created. Luckily, with his attention elsewhere, DS9 was able to flourish.

 

Perhaps because everything was clicking so well over there, the writers/producers knew exactly how to do it on DS9?

 

It is in a sense. Also Deep Space Nine was perfect for Star Trek because it had interesting, superbly crafted characters who were immensely likable, charming, and very believable. The actors were quite simply world class. So charismatic and appealing, I can't say enough good things about them. DS9 was excellent in it's early seasons and when the Dominon, the Defiant and the war came along? Oh my goodness the standards of writing went beyond anything I have ever seen before.

 

The premise was outstanding. The idea of a nation rebuilding after being occupied so cruelly did two things. It created sympathy for the Bajorans, who's culture was so beautiful and rich, you could understand why they deserved to be prosperous, and you understood that the Wormhole would bring so much adventure and danger to the series so you knew it would be something special. It also created a very credible villain race, in the Cardassians and the sublime Gul Dukat.

 

Deep Space Nine also shattered those anti-Star Trek people who always say "Oh in Star Trek, aliens dress the same and have the same haircut" and so forth. With the Bajorans and Cardassians, the writers crafted two races who were deep and varied. They were fleshed out in immense detail and you realised eventually, that the Cardassians weren't just "bad guys", but very complex and complicated. A nation with pride that had been hurt through weakness, which turned them in a more militant direction. Deep Space Nine is the most spiritual Trek show. The commander of the station is revered as a saviour from the "gods" of the Bajorans, which was very believable because of the sheer presence Avery Brooks had on screen.

 

I'm typing this with a big smile on my face, because after the last five days, it makes me very happy to think about a time when Star Trek inspired me, and made me think "I love this show" while I was watching it. It wasn't a perfect show by any means, adding Ezri was a mistake, because it diluted the impact of Jadzia dying. Leaving a gap in her absence would have been more profound IMO. But the flaws were slight, and were massively outweighed by the good things, and there were certainly many of those. I challenge anyone to watch "The Visitor" and not feel sadness when "old Jake" tells the girl about the loss of his father and his obsession to bring him back, which eventually cost him his life. Very powerful stuff. No doubt about that. The relationship between Ben and Jake throughout the show was wonderful because unlike the boring Wesley Crusher, Jake was a flawed person, who had his own path to follow. He wasn't a genius, and that made him more endearing.

 

OK, I'm going on too long about this. I can't help it, I just can't praise DS9 enough!!!!! :) :) :lol:

 

You see, that's why I am so "aggressive" in my criticism of ENT, not because I like "attacking" people, but because I've seen how superb Star Trek can be and I will not accept what I believe is sub-standard material. Once you've soared to the stars, sniffing around in the dirt isn't satisfying.

 

Tom Paris and the Doctor were the best parts of Voyager.

 

I agree. Tom Paris was very charming and made things bearable on that show. The Doctor was quite simply superb. In the hands of a lesser actor, that character may have failed, but with Robert Picardo? No chance. Picardo is an excellent actor. Very charismatic and without any doubt IMO, the greatest thing about VOY.

 

Janeway and Chakotay were good as well. There were other members of the crew I didn't like so much.

 

Robert Beltran is someone I admire. He was the one who spoke out about how poor VOY was, and Berman paid absolutely no attention to him. I applaud Beltran for offering opinions, even if those in power tried to silence him or ignore him. His character wasn't particularly appealing, but that's due to weak writing and not the actor himself. You can try to make crap more appealing by covering it with glitter, but it's still only glittered crap.

 

Janeway was alright. The character was saved by Kate Mulgrew who is simply too charming to dislike.

 

Not so on DS9 ... I liked the entire main cast and all of the supplementary characters from the beginning. I didn't care much for Quark at first, though. It is only since we've purchased the entire run of the series that we've come to love him almost as much as Sisko!

 

Oh absolutely. The characters on DS9 were wonderful. Sisko had the commanding presence and the heart to care about the Bajorans so much, even if it risked his life. He also had to raise his son and eventually accept his wife's loss and move on, which he did beautifully with the incrediblely charming Cassidy Yates. Worf on Deep Space Nine was superb. Worf in the last two Trek movies was insulted and degraded as a "comic figure". Odo was a character I knew I would love when I first heard him talk to Quark in his office in the first episode ("You're a liar and a thief") and to see his quiet adoration of Kira and his obvious despair when he saw her with another man was agonising. The way they handled the Kira/Odo romance was endearing and to see the tough exterior of both characters crack and become tender was excellent. It was handled with dignity and grace and I cannot give the actors and writers enough credit. Rene and Nana, I salute you both :)

 

Quark and his family also were wonderful. The way he developed a loyalty to his friends who didn't trust him at first was believable and credible and his frustration of not being able to do anything when those he cared about were risking their lives in battle was true and honest. Quark turned the Ferengi from a race of "shallow ugly aliens" into a rich complex culture and like the Bajorans, fleshed them out in great detail. Charming race of people. Rom and Leeta's relationship was excellent too, because everyone could sympathise with the slightly slow quiet nimrod who was a genius at engineering, but not good with numbers and socially awkward falling for the "hot chick" who herself proved there was more to her than just looks and being "sexy". There was real depth and feeling in her character. Both actors played their roles with dignity. Nog too, was a character who could have been annoying in lesser hands, but Aron Eisenberg deserves so much credit for making Nog heroic and brave with a delightful friendship with Jake.

 

Bashir and O'Brien. Best mates!!!!! Believable and typical of any true friendship between two blokes. Two guys who were somewhat disillusioned with the horrors of war they were seeing around them and this relationship between these two only added to the sense of family that quickly became evident on DS9. The antics of these two provided much needed smiles when the show could have fallen into darkness with the war (which was also handled with excellent storytelling. Never unnecessary special effects with ships popping each other, but always an advancement to the stories).

 

This was a show were the supporting characters were equal to the regulars and possibly even more interesting. Gul Dukat, I've already mentioned, a superb villain. Very scary and very charming, which probably makes him even more scary. Weyoun? Well, what can you say about Jeffrey Combs? The guy is the best. Evil, slimy, but hilarious. The female shapeshifter, quiet and subtle, but always vicious, but understandable. You knew she wasn't evil, just terrified because of what happened to her people many years ago. Zek, the Nagus, always priceless. Whenever Wallace Shawn appeared on screen, he was a riot. :)

 

.....and there are many many more things I could say, but it would be Thursday before I finished :)

 

Why can't we have someone at the helm of the Star Trek franchise who actually loves the material and is showing an appropriate level of respect for the fans?

 

We will. "Cometh the hour, cometh the man (or woman)". The person or persons to lead Star Trek into the future will emerge in time. I have no doubt about that.

 

As long as Star Trek is hitched to this substandard network and continues to muddle along with its current "leaders" we are not going to be seeing any good new Trek anytime soon.

 

I agree. UPN is not the place for a Trek series in the future. First run syndication is the way forward. I wouldn't favour moving Trek to Sci-Fi because I am weary of it getting "lost" in the mix, with so many similar shows. Besides, what's the point of moving a show from a network which alledgedly cannot be seen by many people, to a cable channel which has even fewer viewers? AND it's also owned by NBC, a major rival to Paramount. I've noticed that the Save Enterprise lobby on this site are getting excited over the Sci-Fi channel. I'm afraid it's simply not going to happen.

 

Poor Enterprise. Poor Star Trek. Poor us.

 

We'll be fine. Don't worry. Even the strongest sometimes weaken for a while. But if they believe, then they'll come back stronger than ever. It WILL happen.

Edited February 9, 2005 by The King

[mj 7]

I challenge anyone to watch "The Visitor" and not feel sadness when "old Jake" tells the girl about the loss of his father and his obsession to bring him back, which eventually cost him his life. Very powerful stuff.

 

I had to take this opportunity to say I agree with this remark.

 

However, I do not consider Enterprise to be 'sniffing in the dirt' just because it is not 'as good' as DS9. I consider 'The Visitor' to be the best Star Trek episode period. Just because other episodes of Star Trek are not as good does not make me incapable of enjoying them.

 

I for one am writing letters in the Save Enterprise campaign.

[HRH The KING 0]

I consider 'The Visitor' to be the best Star Trek episode period. Just because other episodes of Star Trek are not as good does not make me incapable of enjoying them.

 

What makes a person incapable of enjoying a Trek episode, is a poorly written Trek episode, or a poorly written Trek show.

 

I for one am writing letters in the Save Enterprise campaign.

 

Alright.

[gul_nodrog 2]

King (and others):

 

Would you except a revamped version of Enterprise if they retooled the series? You know, got rid of the theme song (blech), fleshed out the characters better, stopped with the romance thing for a while, basically just started over.

 

Or do you think the premise was always flawed? Personally, I hate prequels in any genre. I love history but I'm just not that interested in what came before in "fiction" ... I'm more interested in moving forward when it comes to Star Trek, Harry Potter, Star Wars, and Indiana Jones.

[Data 0]

My main complaint is UPN. The show should of been shown in syndication or on a station like Sci Fi.

 

I was chatting with a friend a couple days ago. She and I agree that our only complaint about the show is that it should of had more stories with the Vulcans and Andorians with the Romulan twist.

Edited February 9, 2005 by Data

[HRH The KING 0]

Would you except a revamped version of Enterprise if they retooled the series?

 

No. ENT or any variation on that particularly show is unacceptable. It's best to start with an entirely new project.

 

Or do you think the premise was always flawed?

 

The premise could have worked. Unfortunately, they filled the show with dull characters and I tend to agree with you, I don't like prequels either.

 

The show should of been shown in syndication or on a station like Sci Fi.

 

First run syndication would be the best way forward. It is costly, but Berman has wasted so much money on ENT, and INS, and NEM, that his excuse of budget restraints doesn't stand up. The amount of money doesn't matter, its how one spends it that really counts.

 

Placing new Trek on Sci-Fi wouldn't be a good idea since that channel has even fewer viewers than UPN.

Edited February 10, 2005 by The King

[Data 0]

Sci Fi may have less viewers but it seems to support shows like Stargate. I would say that Sci Fi would give Trek more of a chance than UPN. But syndication is the way to go.

[HRH The KING 0]

It's not so much about who will give the show a "chance". It doesn't really need a chance because Star Trek is a proven franchise. It all comes down to how good the show is. If it's poor it will fail. If it's exceptional, it will succeed. ENT had a decent premise, but was poorly executed. Paramount has cut it's losses and said "OK, ENT didn't work". Next time, with the next Star Trek project, it will be different if they make the right choices. Honestly, for all their flaws, I admire Paramount's decision. It shows they DO value their franchise to prevent it from further damage after the triple blows of INS, NEM and ENT.

[Takara_Soong 4]

Sci Fi may have less viewers but it seems to support shows like Stargate. I would say that Sci Fi would give Trek more of a chance than UPN. But syndication is the way to go.

302202[/snapback]

 

Agreed.

 

There's is also a big difference between what is considered successful on cable and what is considered successful on a network. For example, when Battlestar Galactica premiered back in January it had 3.1 million viewers which Sci-Fi called record breaking. I think Sci-Fi could easily get those numbers or better with Enterprise.

 

I prefer the syndication route as well. The way the ratings are calucated for syndicated programming is different than network series. It will be interesting to see what the numbers are for Enterprise when the second run episodes start this fall in syndication.

[HRH The KING 0]

*** WARNING ***

 

A blue warning, meaning "A Long Post".

 

Those with short attention spans need not bother clicking on the Spoiler.

 

Click For Spoiler

I think Sci-Fi could easily get those numbers or better with Enterprise.

 

Yeah, but what's the point? It gets two million now on network and with all the baggage ENT brings, even getting three million wouldn't make much difference.

 

The best your side could hope for is a decent syndicated run for existing episodes of ENT. The chances of persuading Paramount to allow Sci-Fi to produce new episodes are absolutely nil.

 

I prefer the syndication route as well.

 

So do I. The plan for "Star Trek Series Six" should certainly involve first run syndication. It allows the broadcaster to place it anywhere on the schedule, perhaps even twice a day. That's what Sky currently do now with whatever old Trek show they wish to broadcast.

 

 

OK People. A few days ago, while wandering from thread to thread, I noticed something of interest. A certain member had a link in their sig. A link to the UPN Feedback System. The intention was to allow people to send Pro-ENT messages to the network. So naturally, I took this link immediately to Kill Enterprise.Org with the advice that we (the Pro-Franchise bandits) should send messages of support to Paramount for cancelling the show. A hour or so ago.....I got a response. Here it is. I've highlighted the important parts in Bold Orange Italic:

 

Hello,

 

Thank you for writing to UPN. The STAR TREK legacy has spanned nearly four decades and has spawned five television series. Ten years ago, STAR TREK: VOYAGER was instrumental in helping launch UPN.

 

The latest incarnation, STAR TREK: ENTERPRISE, has reached the culmination of its journey. This painstaking decision came after it was recognized that despite having many loyal fans like you, the audience for the show was declining steadily. Therefore, ENTERPRISE is set to decommission and will be given a grand send-off on Friday, May 13th at 8 PM ET/PT on UPN.

 

This does not mean that STAR TREK is gone forever. Paramount, the studio that produced all five television series and ten feature films, is looking forward to the next chapter of the STAR TREK saga.

 

We know that this information may not make you feel any better (:bow:) but we want you to know how much we appreciate your input and we sincerely hope that you will continue to share your thoughts with us in the future.

 

Cordially

 

UPN

Viewer Services

Edited February 11, 2005 by The King

[Takara_Soong 4]

King, the response you got to your email is the same one they sent to everyone who emailed in - no matter what position they took. From their response, it seems they are assuming all emails received are in support of the series so you're plan may actually backfire on you.