CBS and fan protests

[Takara_Soong 4]

Sooner or later, ENT fans are going to have to let go and realise that ENT is not the be all and end all for this franchise.

I've never said it was but it also wasn't as bad as you make it out to be. IMO every Trek fan has a favourite series and a least favourite series. For me, ENT falls in between. No matter how good or how bad it was in Trek terms, it was still better than a lot of the non-Trek crap that's on television. That alone made it worth saving IMO.

ENT is on a sci-fi network every Monday and still struggles. Being on a main network doesn't necessarily mean it would have pulled a greater number of viewers either. It just means the criteria needed in terms of numbers would have been even tougher to meet.

Do you have numbers from Sci-Fi? If so please tell me. From ones I've seen it's numbers are pretty consistent with other programing on Sci-Fi (for the past 3 weeks, it's been in their Top 10). As for being on a main network, I didn't say it would automatically mean greater numbers. I said it would be a more accurate view since it would have been seen across the entire US in the same timeslot with some type of promotion - all of which was not the case on UPN.

Which to me suggests that it was a weak show. One cannot blame a local broadcaster for showing a replacement program if they feel they will get a higher rating. When the campaign came along to "save the show" it attracted paltry support. It's been broadcast on Sci-Fi now and it still gets low ratings. Add all these pieces together and I think it demonstrates that ENT fans simply think the show was more popular than it actually was in reality.

Who said that the sports was a replacement program? When I wrote that I was thinking specifically of one UPN affiliate who had the broadcast rights to air games of the local Major League Baseball team (rights they had before Enterprise started airing). It wouldn't have mattered what aired at that timeslot, MLB would have preempted it.

Even excluding those who didn't get to see it, it doesn't explain the enormous loss of confirmed viewers who actually did see it.

Any series that gets moved to a bad timeslot, is preempted or shown in a different timeslot by affiliates so viewership is not included in the ratings and receives absolutely no promotion isn't going to do well no matter how good it is.

 

Saying a series is bad because it didn't get good ratings is incredibly simplistic. There are a lot of "bad" series that get great ratings and a lot of "good" series that get bad ratings. It all comes down to the network and in this case it wouldn't have mattered if ENT was the #1 series on UPN they would have still cancelled it because it didn't fit in with their plans.

[Gummy 0]

Bravo, Takara, Bravo! :(

[Kor37 9]

Bravo, Takara, Bravo!

 

 

I second that. Couldn't have said it better myself!.. :(

[Lady Britannia 0]

The quote system has once again failed me...either that or I have failed the quote system.

 

So I've put quotes in italics and my posts in bold.

 

"Takara Soong"

 

I've never said it was but it also wasn't as bad as you make it out to be. IMO every Trek fan has a favourite series and a least favourite series.

 

Opinions will vary no doubt.

 

For me, ENT falls in between. No matter how good or how bad it was in Trek terms, it was still better than a lot of the non-Trek crap that's on television. That alone made it worth saving IMO.

 

Being better than other crap programs doesn't mean it's worth saving. All it means is that the bar of quality is being lowered to the extent that to make ENT look good, one has to compare it with what lies on the absolute bottom of the barrel.

 

Do you have numbers from Sci-Fi? If so please tell me. From ones I've seen it's numbers are pretty consistent with other programing on Sci-Fi (for the past 3 weeks, it's been in their Top 10).

 

The numbers are posted on the Sci-Fi Channel's official message board in the ENT thread on the "ENT Ratings Thread". They are reposted on TrekBBS on the ENT forum and on Star Trek's official message board by my own cousin.

 

As for being on a main network, I didn't say it would automatically mean greater numbers. I said it would be a more accurate view since it would have been seen across the entire US in the same timeslot with some type of promotion - all of which was not the case on UPN.

 

Being on a bigger network doesn't mean it would have got higher ratings. Initially it may have but it might not have retained them for long, but again this is speculation. Another theory would be that had the show had better quality writing it would have succeeded even on UPN. But again, it's pointless to speculate on "what could have been".

 

Who said that the sports was a replacement program? When I wrote that I was thinking specifically of one UPN affiliate who had the broadcast rights to air games of the local Major League Baseball team (rights they had before Enterprise started airing). It wouldn't have mattered what aired at that timeslot, MLB would have preempted it

 

This I think disproves the other conspiracy theory that ENT fans often raise about a supposed "grudge" against Star Trek and sci-fi, because it indicates that simple station programming policy was at work and not a targeted campaign against ENT.

 

Any series that gets moved to a bad timeslot, is preempted or shown in a different timeslot by affiliates so viewership is not included in the ratings and receives absolutely no promotion isn't going to do well no matter how good it is

 

This we don't know, because I don't think ENT was a particularly good show, so we'll never know how a quality ENT would have coped with all the obstacles you perceived. The matter of timeslot and promotion vary according to the ENT fans one talks to. For those who say it was never promoted, there are those who knew fully well when the show was being broadcast and of course WWE Smackdown does very well in the "death-slot-of-doom" which suggests there are more complex factors at work regarding that timeslot.

 

Saying a series is bad because it didn't get good ratings is incredibly simplistic.

 

That's not what I say. I rather say that it got bad ratings because it wasn't a good show

 

There are a lot of "bad" series that get great ratings and a lot of "good" series that get bad ratings.

 

Depends on what you personally consider "bad" and "good". There may be shows you consider poor which get good ratings because other people love it. Alternatively there may be shows you consider great in which you are in a relatively small segment of people who believe that.

 

It all comes down to the network and in this case it wouldn't have mattered if ENT was the #1 series on UPN they would have still cancelled it because it didn't fit in with their plans.

 

I don't accept this argument. It is conspiratorial. I think it's highly unlikely that ENT would have been cancelled if it was successful in the ratings merely because the "right sort" of people weren't watching.

 

"Gummy"

 

Bravo, Takara, Bravo!

 

"Kor37"

 

I second that. Couldn't have said it better myself!..

 

How odd.

[Gummy 0]

There isn't anything odd about Kor and I agreeing with Takara on this.

She put our argument into words better than we could have. However, Takara is more knowledgeable on the subject than we are. So we gave the floor to her to state our side of the discussion.

[Theunicornhunter 2]

I think I've lost track of what we're argu... uh discussing.

 

1. Entertainment entities - movie studios, networks etc do have target demographics - does anyone dispute this?

2. The most sought after demographic is 18-39 or 18-49 males - does anyone dispute this?

3. UPN's target demographic was somewhat younger - does anyone dispute this?

4. UPN was not universally available to the American viewing audience - does anyone dispute this?

5. UPN did not promote or market Enterprise - does anyone dispute this?

6. Enterprises Nielsen ratings did decline over the years of it's run - there seems to be some dispute here.

7. Now, the Nielsens aren't always an accurate measure of viewership although networks insist on using them. Many markets ran ENT as a syndicated series so people saw it on weekends- not on the night they were measuring viewership. I know in my area the UPN station was bought by CBS so no more ENT in regular timeslot- this could have happened all over the country. What part of this does everyone dispute?

 

Mark Twain once said "there are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics"

 

It may be accurate to say that Enterprise's Nielsen ratings declined because that is a measurable statement. However, to say that means ENT's viewership declined is an interpretive statement - it assumes the Nielsens are an accuate measure of viewership. That's an assumption I don't accept.

 

I believe someone here once said assumptions invite questions. Anyone that knows anything about research and statistics knows that the mere fact that some people will agree to host a Nielsen box and some will not means that there is some personality trait differentiating those who are measured and those who are not even though potential participants are allegedly chosen randomly (can't say if that is true because I don't know how they select their potential viewers). If participants are in any way skewed toward one or another trait this raises the question as to just how representative the Nielsens are. There has been much discussion of whether the Nielsens are really representive of the population. I suspect they are not. TOTB are finally recognizing the influence of Tivo, iTunes etc in viewership.

 

So Nielsen ratings and viewership are not necessarily the same thing.

 

And ENT is definitely my least favorite of all ST series.

[TJ Phaserman 2]

Enterprise was just another ST-TOS in the making. i mean come on, the writers made more mistakes than the producers did, but mananged to make great episodes. and at the expense of being shot at because of my views, i stand by it. i mean even though it managed to go one season further than the original series did, it still didn't have any original enough episodes.

[Odie 0]

An interesting note Nielsen Ratings do not count military personal in military housing.

 

LB: To use multiple quotes click on + quote to ones that you want to use then click on add reply. I hope this helps you out.

Edited June 23, 2007 by Odie

[Lady Britannia 0]

"Gummy"

 

There isn't anything odd about Kor and I agreeing with Takara on this.

She put our argument into words better than we could have. However, Takara is more knowledgeable on the subject than we are. So we gave the floor to her to state our side of the discussion.

 

The oddness I referred to was the "cheerleading" tone to those posts.

 

"The Unicorn Hunter"

 

I think I've lost track of what we're argu... uh discussing.

 

1. Entertainment entities - movie studios, networks etc do have target demographics - does anyone dispute this?

2. The most sought after demographic is 18-39 or 18-49 males - does anyone dispute this?

3. UPN's target demographic was somewhat younger - does anyone dispute this?

4. UPN was not universally available to the American viewing audience - does anyone dispute this?

5. UPN did not promote or market Enterprise - does anyone dispute this?

6. Enterprises Nielsen ratings did decline over the years of it's run - there seems to be some dispute here.

7. Now, the Nielsens aren't always an accurate measure of viewership although networks insist on using them. Many markets ran ENT as a syndicated series so people saw it on weekends- not on the night they were measuring viewership. I know in my area the UPN station was bought by CBS so no more ENT in regular timeslot- this could have happened all over the country. What part of this does everyone dispute?

 

1- No.

2- Uncertain, regarding ENT.

3- Uncertain, regarding ENT.

4- No, but it did reach around 86% of all households, reaching nearly 92 million houses in the U.S.

5- Yes, very much so.

6- No, there is no dispute. The NR's did decline greatly.

7- The part where this was relevant to those who cancelled ENT.

 

Mark Twain once said "there are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics"

 

Doesn't necessarily mean that all statistics are lies.

 

It may be accurate to say that Enterprise's Nielsen ratings declined because that is a measurable statement. However, to say that means ENT's viewership declined is an interpretive statement - it assumes the Nielsens are an accuate measure of viewership. That's an assumption I don't accept.

 

ENT's viewership did decline. From the opening episode which attracted 12.54 million viewers to the last episode of Season Three which attracted 3.91 million viewers, to the final episode which drew 3.80 million viewers. The lowest viewership was "Babel One" which drew 2.53 million viewers.

[Angela 1]

one thing is it cheerleading to say hey right on I agree. Cause if so. the world should be full of argument!

 

an as for any argument that follows from you directed at me.

 

WHAT EVER. Am not interested, made my point.

[Gummy 0]

I cheerlead for those who I believe are fighting for my cause. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Theunicornhunter 2]

 

ENT's viewership did decline. From the opening episode which attracted 12.54 million viewers to the last episode of Season Three which attracted 3.91 million viewers, to the final episode which drew 3.80 million viewers. The lowest viewership was "Babel One" which drew 2.53 million viewers.

 

That quote had me rolling in the aisles - all you're quoting is the Nielsen's.

[Kor37 9]

The Neilsons became irrelevant the minute VCRs began being used.

[Gummy 0]

The Neilsons became irrelevant the minute VCRs began being used.

Agreed. In today's fast paced world, it's unlikely that most people will be in front of their TV's to watch their favorite shows when they are being aired live. Many viewers, myself included, utilize our DVR's (TiVo, etc..)

to record our shows so that we may watch them when it is convenient to US. Therefore, the Neilson Rating System has gone by the wayside. I find their statistics not to be reliable anymore.

[Takara_Soong 4]

I think I've lost track of what we're argu... uh discussing.

 

1. Entertainment entities - movie studios, networks etc do have target demographics - does anyone dispute this?

2. The most sought after demographic is 18-39 or 18-49 males - does anyone dispute this?

3. UPN's target demographic was somewhat younger - does anyone dispute this?

4. UPN was not universally available to the American viewing audience - does anyone dispute this?

5. UPN did not promote or market Enterprise - does anyone dispute this?

6. Enterprises Nielsen ratings did decline over the years of it's run - there seems to be some dispute here.

7. Now, the Nielsens aren't always an accurate measure of viewership although networks insist on using them. Many markets ran ENT as a syndicated series so people saw it on weekends- not on the night they were measuring viewership. I know in my area the UPN station was bought by CBS so no more ENT in regular timeslot- this could have happened all over the country. What part of this does everyone dispute?

1. Agreed.

2. Agreed.

3. Agreed. They stated many times that they were targetting a young, female audience.

4. Agreed. It is a fact that at least half of the US didn't have access to UPN.

5. Agreed.

6. Agreed. The ratings were down after Enterprise was moved to Friday nights and given no promotion.

7. Agreed. There were many fans who posted at various forums that Enterprise was being aired at times other than Friday night in their market.

It may be accurate to say that Enterprise's Nielsen ratings declined because that is a measurable statement. However, to say that means ENT's viewership declined is an interpretive statement - it assumes the Nielsens are an accuate measure of viewership. That's an assumption I don't accept.

 

I believe someone here once said assumptions invite questions. Anyone that knows anything about research and statistics knows that the mere fact that some people will agree to host a Nielsen box and some will not means that there is some personality trait differentiating those who are measured and those who are not even though potential participants are allegedly chosen randomly (can't say if that is true because I don't know how they select their potential viewers). If participants are in any way skewed toward one or another trait this raises the question as to just how representative the Nielsens are. There has been much discussion of whether the Nielsens are really representive of the population. I suspect they are not. TOTB are finally recognizing the influence of Tivo, iTunes etc in viewership.

 

So Nielsen ratings and viewership are not necessarily the same thing.

Well said, UH. You hit the nail on the head when it comes to the Nielsen Ratings.

The numbers are posted on the Sci-Fi Channel's official message board in the ENT thread on the "ENT Ratings Thread". They are reposted on TrekBBS on the ENT forum and on Star Trek's official message board by my own cousin.

Thank you for that information. I have been going over the numbers and have a question for you. You say that Enterprise's ratings have not been good at Sci-Fi. What do you base your statement on? Do you see the ratings and say that's a low number so it must be bad or do you compare that rating with the numbers of the other programming on Sci-Fi. Based on what has been posted in that thread at the Sci-Fi boards, Enterprise has been consistently in their top 10 programming. Even more importantly, Enterprise has the demographics Sci-Fi wants. I found this article posted in the Enterprise ratings thread at Sci-Fi:

New York, NY – May 30, 2007 - SCI FI Channel scored its best May ever and enjoyed double digit increases vs May 2006 with deliveries of 596,000 Adults 25-54 (up 25%); 529,000 Adults 18–49 (up 29%); 215,000 Adults 18–34 (up 65%) and 1,084,000 Total Viewers (up 22%). SCI FI ranked #4 among entertainment cable networks among Adults 25-54.

 

Among fully distributed cable networks, SCI FI has the #3 largest year-to-year gain among Adults 25-54 (25%), and the greatest in that category among the top ten cable networks.

 

SCI FI's record May includes increases on six out of seven nights of the week, with double digit increases on five of those six nights compared to a year ago.

 

The Star Trek Enterprise stack (8-11p) on Monday has led to significant increases among Adults 18-49 (+75%) and Adults 25-54 (+82%)

Tuesday's 8-11p lineup culminating with ECW has led to growth among Adults 18-49 (+75%) and Adults 25-54 (+46%).

Ghost Hunters on Wednesday nights displayed gains of +13% among Adults 18-49 and +3% among Adults 25-54.

Movies on Thursday nights led to a +10% boost in performance among Adults 25-54.

Sci Fi Friday, consisting of original episodes of Stargate SG-1, Stargate Atlantis, and Painkiller Jane outperformed the same time period last year by +64% among Adults 18-49 and +58% among Adults 25-54.

Strong performances from movies on Saturday nights, the "Most Dangerous Night of Television", led to increases of +17% among Adults 18-49 and +11% among Adults 25-54.

 

SCI FI's year-over-year increases mark SCI FI's best gains for May since May 2000 among Adults 25–54 and best since May 1999 among Adults 18–49. Additionally, SCI FI had its best May ever among key male (18-34, 18-49 and 25–54) and female demographics (18-34 and 25-54). SCI FI ranked in the top ten among Men 18–34, 18–49 and 25-54.

Your statements regarding how Enterprise is doing on Sci-Fi seem to be flawed. As well, Sci-Fi seems to be quite happy with how Enterprise is doing or they wouldn't be running 4 episodes back-to-back as their entire Monday night line-up.

This I think disproves the other conspiracy theory that ENT fans often raise about a supposed "grudge" against Star Trek and sci-fi, because it indicates that simple station programming policy was at work and not a targeted campaign against ENT.

I haven't said anything about there being a conspiracy so I'm not sure why you bring that up. I have said that UPN's ideology ran counter to Enterprise. I've also said that what they did was SOP for networks so I don't know why you have brought up that in a response to my post.

This we don't know, because I don't think ENT was a particularly good show, so we'll never know how a quality ENT would have coped with all the obstacles you perceived. The matter of timeslot and promotion vary according to the ENT fans one talks to. For those who say it was never promoted, there are those who knew fully well when the show was being broadcast and of course WWE Smackdown does very well in the "death-slot-of-doom" which suggests there are more complex factors at work regarding that timeslot.

First thing, you can't compare wrestling to Enterprise (or any series for that matter) when it comes to promotion because the WWE is a promotion machine and it didn't matter whether UPN promoted Smackdown or not because the WWE did. You watch one WWE program and they have a plug for another which has a plug for another and so on. It doesn't work that way for series television on any network.

That's not what I say. I rather say that it got bad ratings because it wasn't a good show

It isn't what you say?! All you do is use ratings as "proof" that Enterprise wasn't a good series. That isn't proof.

Depends on what you personally consider "bad" and "good". There may be shows you consider poor which get good ratings because other people love it. Alternatively there may be shows you consider great in which you are in a relatively small segment of people who believe that.

I was more referring to the annual parade of critics who tell us how wonderful a series is and then it gets cancelled after 2 episodes because of bad ratings or how bad a series is and then it lasts for years.

I don't accept this argument. It is conspiratorial. I think it's highly unlikely that ENT would have been cancelled if it was successful in the ratings merely because the "right sort" of people weren't watching.

It isn't conspiratorial. It's business. What type of proof do you require? We'll bring in the old Veronica Mars* crap now. Enterprise consistenly had higher ratings than Veronica Mars but Enterprise was cancelled and Veronica Mars kept getting renewed. Why? Because Enterprise's demographics were not what UPN wanted and Veronica Mars' demographics fit UPN's targetted audience. You like wrestling so much so we'll bring Smackdown back into it. It was one of UPN's highest rated programs but that didn't stop UPN from NOT renewing the contract to air it because it didn't fit in with their network demographics. Ratings don't mean much in the grand scheme of things. Demographics is what decides whether a series stays or goes. Maybe it is different in Britain but that IS how it works in the US.

 

*BTW, it seems that Veronica Mars has now been cancelled by CW. Once again the series fans are mounting a "save Veronica" campaign.

 

Lady Britannia, if you want to continue to claim that Enterprise wasn't a good series then please just say you didn't like it and drop all the Neilsen's "proof" because quoting ratings does not prove anything. For example, DS9 is my least favourite Trek series. I could use all sorts of statistics to "prove" that it wasn't a good series if I followed your practice that ratings prove whether a series is good or bad. I could bring out ratings from when it first aired or bring up how little it is shown on television now compared to other Trek series. You can critisize Enterprise all you want but the fact remains that it is aired much more frequently and in much better timeslots than DS9 is (same can be said about Voyager). *sarcasm* DS9 must really be bringing in the viewers in the 2 a.m./3 a.m. timeslot it has on Spike. *end sarcasm* Personally I prefer to let DS9 fans have their opinion on how great they think the series is without getting into arguments about it. All the "proof" in the world isn't going to change their minds that it is, IMO, the least successful Trek series.

Edited June 23, 2007 by Takara_Soong

[Odie 0]

Takara, well stated!

[Lady Britannia 0]

"Takara Soong"

 

Thank you for that information. I have been going over the numbers and have a question for you. You say that Enterprise's ratings have not been good at Sci-Fi. What do you base your statement on? Do you see the ratings and say that's a low number so it must be bad or do you compare that rating with the numbers of the other programming on Sci-Fi. Based on what has been posted in that thread at the Sci-Fi boards, Enterprise has been consistently in their top 10 programming. Even more importantly, Enterprise has the demographics Sci-Fi wants. I found this article posted in the Enterprise ratings thread at Sci-Fi:

 

Your statements regarding how Enterprise is doing on Sci-Fi seem to be flawed. As well, Sci-Fi seems to be quite happy with how Enterprise is doing or they wouldn't be running 4 episodes back-to-back as their entire Monday night line-up.

 

No, not flawed. I suppose I should clarify. My point about ENT "not doing well" refers to the context of this thread. That being fan protests and the dismay that some ENT fans may be feeling. ENT is not doing well enough on Sci-Fi Channel to justify the hopes of ENT's hardcore element who believed that the show should find a new life in re-runs on that particular channel, which would lead to a resurrection of the series.

 

I haven't said anything about there being a conspiracy so I'm not sure why you bring that up. I have said that UPN's ideology ran counter to Enterprise. I've also said that what they did was SOP for networks so I don't know why you have brought up that in a response to my post.

 

It's the comment you make about "UPN's ideology" that I find conspiratorial. There's no evidence that a lack of the right demographics was behind the cancellation. The reason cited was low ratings. Not "low ratings among our target groups".

 

First thing, you can't compare wrestling to Enterprise (or any series for that matter) when it comes to promotion because the WWE is a promotion machine and it didn't matter whether UPN promoted Smackdown or not because the WWE did. You watch one WWE program and they have a plug for another which has a plug for another and so on. It doesn't work that way for series television on any network.

 

WWE is a "promotion machine" only in the sense that it is allowed to be one by the channels it broadcasts on. It's very simple. If you know the first time that ENT is broadcast on UPN, then that's the channel you look at each week to find out when the show is on. Even "if" it jumps around the schedule and is sometimes pre-empted it's going to be on that network. You don't need another Star Trek show to tell you what channel it is on. With WWE it's very simple. "Monday Night" RAW (with the occasional exception) on Monday. "Friday Night" Smackdown on Fridays. It's not rocket science.

 

It isn't what you say?! All you do is use ratings as "proof" that Enterprise wasn't a good series. That isn't proof.

 

Actually no, that's not what I say. Let me explain again. I didn't think ENT was a very good show. So I can accept that the ratings slid because the quality did. That is the most logical and reasonable explanation to account for the failure of the show. One can consider all these other elaborate theories, but none are very convincing.

 

I was more referring to the annual parade of critics who tell us how wonderful a series is and then it gets cancelled after 2 episodes because of bad ratings or how bad a series is and then it lasts for years.

 

Fundamentally critics merely offer opinions. They aren't necessarily set in stone as being "right" or "wrong"

 

It isn't conspiratorial. It's business. What type of proof do you require?

 

Some kind of official statement saying that demographics were the catalyst for the cancellation would be welcome.

 

We'll bring in the old Veronica Mars* crap now. Enterprise consistenly had higher ratings than Veronica Mars but Enterprise was cancelled and Veronica Mars kept getting renewed. Why? Because Enterprise's demographics were not what UPN wanted and Veronica Mars' demographics fit UPN's targetted audience

 

Not necessarily. Veronica Mars may be reaching the right kind of demographic, but ENT may have been cancelled because its existing viewership which most likely crosses demographics was shrinking. Not to mention of course the higher costs of producing ENT as opposed to Veronica Mars.

 

You like wrestling so much so we'll bring Smackdown back into it. It was one of UPN's highest rated programs but that didn't stop UPN from NOT renewing the contract to air it because it didn't fit in with their network demographics. Ratings don't mean much in the grand scheme of things. Demographics is what decides whether a series stays or goes. Maybe it is different in Britain but that IS how it works in the US

 

It was an error. Moonves denied that the show was not renewed and merely stated that it had been considered. It came at a time of great change in WWE programmings when the company's contract with Viacom was coming to an end.

 

BTW, it seems that Veronica Mars has now been cancelled by CW. Once again the series fans are mounting a "save Veronica" campaign.

 

Good for them. I hope they succeed without resorting to the kind of antics that the "Save Enterprise" group did.

 

Lady Britannia, if you want to continue to claim that Enterprise wasn't a good series then please just say you didn't like it and drop all the Neilsen's "proof" because quoting ratings does not prove anything.

 

I quote ratings when asked for that information. I am more than happy to discuss the weaknesses of the series, and the matter of ratings is simply an additional tangent that I believe is accounted for by the poor quality of the content of the episodes.

 

For example, DS9 is my least favourite Trek series. I could use all sorts of statistics to "prove" that it wasn't a good series if I followed your practice that ratings prove whether a series is good or bad. I could bring out ratings from when it first aired or bring up how little it is shown on television now compared to other Trek series. You can critisize Enterprise all you want but the fact remains that it is aired much more frequently and in much better timeslots than DS9 is (same can be said about Voyager). *sarcasm* DS9 must really be bringing in the viewers in the 2 a.m./3 a.m. timeslot it has on Spike. *end sarcasm* Personally I prefer to let DS9 fans have their opinion on how great they think the series is without getting into arguments about it.

 

You would be entitled to. DS9's ratings did decline, which is to be expected given the experimental nature of the show. It's not unreasonable to say that it didn't appeal to many in the fanbase. That's not going to be denied. By the same rational, ENT's ratings slid because it too didn't appeal to many in the fanbase. I make no exceptions for DS9.

 

All the "proof" in the world isn't going to change their minds that it is, IMO, the least successful Trek series

 

Because there is no justification to call it the "least successful" Star Trek series.

 

You could however say that it was the "least successful Star Trek series in terms of how much it satisfied your personal expectations of enjoyment".

 

Although that is somewhat of a mouthful.

 

 

From earlier in the thread. I didn't see these posts before:

 

Takara Soong

 

Smackdown does not "prosper" on Friday nights on CW. On Friday, June 15, it finished 4th in its timeslot with a 2.4/5 rating (which seems to be its average ratings figure and not just this week's numbers). It was beaten by a rerun of the Bob Barker farewell Price is Right special, a rerun of an episode of the gameshow 1 vs 100 and a rerun of an episode of Bones.

 

"Prosper" is a relative term in this context, both for a wrestling show (which isn't mainstream entertainment) and for the show in the death slot of doom. It does well for what it is and what is expected of it.

 

One thing, please - do not stereotype me as a TrekUnited person because I supported saving Enterprise because I'm not. I agreed with the idea of letters and petitions and that type of thing but when they changed their tactics they lost any of the limited support they had from me. I wouldn't be surprised if you and I have a similiar opinion of the folks at TrekUnited.

 

You use the same kind of arguments they have used. There is very little difference.

 

"Bakula Babe"

 

Sorry about being a little late with this, but yes, that's the name I couldn't remember. I read that rumor so many times, and in so many places, I figured it was true. I also read that Enerprise's ratings were low, but I wasn't sure how low. Thanks for the extra info about Trek United - I didn't know all that they were up to. They're still around? Wow, that's surprising! Maybe they can get someone to do an animated - or anime - Enterprise. Or maybe they could just do it themselves. It might be interesting.

 

Let me get this straight. The group that thought it was a good idea to make fun of Moonves getting hit by a car and made an animated short which depicted him as a demon. This is the website you believe had the power to get an ENT animated show made or, laughably, make it themselves? I'm sorry but this suggestion is as quixotic as Trek United themselves.

 

"The Unicorn Hunter"

 

Well, just because you don't believe something - doesn't mean it isn't ture. Target demographics is how how it works in the US - there are target audiences. It shouldn't be hard for a person of reason to figure out - that if advertisers are marketing toward a certain demographic - ie people to buy thier producet - they aren't going to pay money for a show that isn't reaching their demographic - now matter how popular it is with another demographic. Now if advertisers targeting that other demographic step forward there may be hope for the series. Which has nothing to do with ENT - it didn't have ratings with any demographic.

 

And just because you may think something is true, doesn't mean it actually is.

 

If anyone can present me with information saying that ENT was cancelled because it didn't reach the right demographics, as opposed to the cited reason as being simply "low ratings" in general, then I'll believe it.

Edited June 23, 2007 by Lady Britannia

[Takara_Soong 4]

No, not flawed. I suppose I should clarify. My point about ENT "not doing well" refers to the context of this thread. That being fan protests and the dismay that some ENT fans may be feeling. ENT is not doing well enough on Sci-Fi Channel to justify the hopes of ENT's hardcore element who believed that the show should find a new life in re-runs on that particular channel, which would lead to a resurrection of the series.

I've re-read this thread and no one that I could see has said that Enterprise should or could be brought back so I don't know how you can consider your comment to be in context with this thread. Even if that were being considered, the ratings that Enterprise has at Sci-Fi would not be a deterrent considering its ratings are higher than a number of first run series that Sci-Fi carries.

It's the comment you make about "UPN's ideology" that I find conspiratorial. There's no evidence that a lack of the right demographics was behind the cancellation. The reason cited was low ratings. Not "low ratings among our target groups".

UPN's "ideology" was stated a number of times. The PTB at UPN stated that their target audience was young females and young African-Americans at media launches, in press releases, etc. There may be no "proof" but common sense says that Enterprise was cancelled because of demographics. How can one of UPN's highest rated series be cancelled for low ratings when series with lower ratings are not cancelled? The answer is demographics.

WWE is a "promotion machine" only in the sense that it is allowed to be one by the channels it broadcasts on. It's very simple. If you know the first time that ENT is broadcast on UPN, then that's the channel you look at each week to find out when the show is on. Even "if" it jumps around the schedule and is sometimes pre-empted it's going to be on that network. You don't need another Star Trek show to tell you what channel it is on. With WWE it's very simple. "Monday Night" RAW (with the occasional exception) on Monday. "Friday Night" Smackdown on Fridays. It's not rocket science.

You are understating the power of WWE's promotion machine IMO. As for your examples, what good does it do to know what network a series is on if the local affialite airs it on different nights and at different times than what it is scheduled for. How do you find it if your television schedule says it is on at one time and then it airs at a different time? And if you can find it, if it didn't air at the time the network says it is suppose to air then the ratings don't count. This is a far out example to explain my point - 8 million people could have watched Enterprise on Saturdays but that wouldn't count towards its ratings because that is not when it "officially" aired.

Actually no, that's not what I say. Let me explain again. I didn't think ENT was a very good show. So I can accept that the ratings slid because the quality did. That is the most logical and reasonable explanation to account for the failure of the show. One can consider all these other elaborate theories, but none are very convincing.

We'll have to agree to disagree because IMO ratings and quality do not necessarily go together.

Some kind of official statement saying that demographics were the catalyst for the cancellation would be welcome.

Since when has any network ever stated that demographics were the reason for a cancellation no matter what the ratings were. Demographics have been used to justify low rated series being kept on the air though.

It was an error. Moonves denied that the show was not renewed and merely stated that it had been considered. It came at a time of great change in WWE programmings when the company's contract with Viacom was coming to an end.

Is see where that was said now however it is mostly likely that UPN/Moonves decided to renew only after the announced merger with CW since the new CW's target audiences are much broader than what UPN's was so wrestling would fit into their corporate strategy. I would have been extremely surprised if they had renewed it if UPN had continued as it was.

I quote ratings when asked for that information. I am more than happy to discuss the weaknesses of the series, and the matter of ratings is simply an additional tangent that I believe is accounted for by the poor quality of the content of the episodes.

Personally, I don't feel like hearing your reasons for why you didn't like Enterprise nor do I feel like defending why I liked it since it just comes down to personal preference and nothing either you or I say is going to change any minds. If you want to discuss that in another thread in the Enterprise forum with others, knock yourself out.

You would be entitled to. DS9's ratings did decline, which is to be expected given the experimental nature of the show. It's not unreasonable to say that it didn't appeal to many in the fanbase. That's not going to be denied. By the same rational, ENT's ratings slid because it too didn't appeal to many in the fanbase. I make no exceptions for DS9.

So using the rationale you use for Enterprise not being a good series that would mean DS9 was not a good series either?

Because there is no justification to call it the "least successful" Star Trek series.

 

You could however say that it was the "least successful Star Trek series in terms of how much it satisfied your personal expectations of enjoyment".

 

Although that is somewhat of a mouthful.

I disagree. In terms of North America, the current situation regarding the airing of DS9 is a pretty good indicator that it is the least successful Trek series.

[Lady Britannia 0]

"Takara Soong"

 

I've re-read this thread and no one that I could see has said that Enterprise should or could be brought back so I don't know how you can consider your comment to be in context with this thread.

 

I would thought it obvious given the nature of this thread which opened with discussions of saving shows.

 

Well, that aside, now you know.

 

Even if that were being considered, the ratings that Enterprise has at Sci-Fi would not be a deterrent considering its ratings are higher than a number of first run series that Sci-Fi carries.

 

If they cancelled the show while it was drawing 2.0-3.0 on UPN, it isn't going to come back after drawing a rare 1.1 and a usual 0.9 on Sci-Fi. Also, it was stated in the letter to Brazeal that the cancellation was final and after two years, nothing indicates that situation will change.

 

UPN's "ideology" was stated a number of times. The PTB at UPN stated that their target audience was young females and young African-Americans at media launches, in press releases, etc. There may be no "proof" but common sense says that Enterprise was cancelled because of demographics.

 

The demographic argument when applied to ENT is silly and irrelevant, since Star Trek tends to be a show which attracts a cross-section of viewers. If UPN stated they wished to attract young females and young African-Americans, then they would be included in Star Trek's fanbase and viewership. Unless someone wants to tell me that young female Americans and black Americans don't watch Star Trek?

 

How can one of UPN's highest rated series be cancelled for low ratings when series with lower ratings are not cancelled? The answer is demographics

 

The answer is more likely to be 1) ENT cost a great deal more than those other shows and 2) the other shows didn't have a larger franchise to consider. Allowing ENT to stay on-air and declining season after season could possibly have harmed later Star Trek series. Eventually they drew a line under the show and have moved the franchise on.

 

You are understating the power of WWE's promotion machine IMO. As for your examples, what good does it do to know what network a series is on if the local affialite airs it on different nights and at different times than what it is scheduled for.

 

How do you find it if your television schedule says it is on at one time and then it airs at a different time? And if you can find it, if it didn't air at the time the network says it is suppose to air then the ratings don't count. This is a far out example to explain my point - 8 million people could have watched Enterprise on Saturdays but that wouldn't count towards its ratings because that is not when it "officially" aired

 

Then why not check first? Why not double check? If it is that important that a viewer watches this particular show, why not have a look at the new schedules (I presume North America has that technology)? Or call the local broadcaster? It wouldn't be that much of an effort, unless one was simply a casual viewer who had better things to do. We don't know that these legions of fans even existed. They certainly didn't turn out when the call went out to save the show which indicates one of three things. 1- These people who couldn't put in the effort to check when their favourite TV show was on apparently never heard of the Save Enterprise Campaign, 2- They heard about it but didn't give two hoots about it or 3- They never actually existed. I find the suggestion that a network would cancel a TV show if they even suspected that millions upon millions of viewers were being overlooked through time-shifting viewing patterns to lack credibility.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree because IMO ratings and quality do not necessarily go together.

 

It depends on the viewers taste, but in ENT's case, I think it actually was the case.

 

Since when has any network ever stated that demographics were the reason for a cancellation no matter what the ratings were. Demographics have been used to justify low rated series being kept on the air though.

 

If nothing was ever said officially regarding demographics regarding ENT's cancellation, it suggests that demographics weren't really an issue in the decision, but just low ratings across the board.

 

Is see where that was said now however it is mostly likely that UPN/Moonves decided to renew only after the announced merger with CW since the new CW's target audiences are much broader than what UPN's was so wrestling would fit into their corporate strategy. I would have been extremely surprised if they had renewed it if UPN had continued as it was.

 

Well we can't be certain. Wrestling is another example of a show that attracts quite a diverse fanbase within a specific niche. African-Americans and young women attend WWE shows but the fanbase includes all sorts of people. A network can have a target audience but still have a few programs that reach a wider base. Look at Sci-Fi at the moment. Their top-rated show is wrestling, ECW to be precise. A show that is outside of their normal audience (indeed the debut of this show met with ugly and hideous hostility from science fiction fanatics) but it's on their schedules nevertheless and it does relatively well.

 

Personally, I don't feel like hearing your reasons for why you didn't like Enterprise nor do I feel like defending why I liked it since it just comes down to personal preference and nothing either you or I say is going to change any minds. If you want to discuss that in another thread in the Enterprise forum with others, knock yourself out.

 

I'll keep an eye out for interesting threads.

 

So using the rationale you use for Enterprise not being a good series that would mean DS9 was not a good series either?

 

For some yes. No question. The difference is that it had enough fans to stay the course. ENT did not.

 

I disagree. In terms of North America, the current situation regarding the airing of DS9 is a pretty good indicator that it is the least successful Trek series.

 

Not necessarily, DS9's unique situation is to be expected given that DS9 was, in the Star Trek franchise, an experimental show which has always been regarded as the black sheep of the family (in terms of style). It had darker themes so that could explain why it doesn't easily fit into schedules. But its seven seasons speak for themselves in terms of success.

Edited June 24, 2007 by Lady Britannia

[ensign_beedrill 0]

It's a shame that Enterprise was canceled. I just finished watching its first entire series run on the Sci-Fi channel (I'm a little behind; I tape and watch later.), and during and after many episodes I found myself saying aloud, "Why would they ever want to cancel a show like this?" It really was a great show, and I enjoyed it very much. Having just finished watching the series, I feel that it really could have gone on to greatness. It doesn't help that the very last episode left much to be desired. It could have at least been ended gracefully without dragging TNG into it.

 

Here's a thought:

If Enterprise had gone seven years, it would have probably ended its run a few weeks ago. Dang.

[Gummy 0]

It's a shame that Enterprise was canceled. I just finished watching its first entire series run on the Sci-Fi channel (I'm a little behind; I tape and watch later.), and during and after many episodes I found myself saying aloud, "Why would they ever want to cancel a show like this?" It really was a great show, and I enjoyed it very much. Having just finished watching the series, I feel that it really could have gone on to greatness. It doesn't help that the very last episode left much to be desired. It could have at least been ended gracefully without dragging TNG into it.

 

Here's a thought:

If Enterprise had gone seven years, it would have probably ended its run a few weeks ago. Dang.

 

Quite possible. But we'll never know now. And it's a shame. I still believe that the best was yet to come. :biggrin:

[TJ Phaserman 2]

well did you guys know there are talks to being DS9 back?

[Gummy 0]

well did you guys know there are talks to being DS9 back?

This is news to me. Where did you hear/read this?

[Kor37 9]

I haven't heard a word about this either. I can't believe that they would bring it back although I would be delighted if they would.

[Gummy 0]

I haven't heard a word about this either. I can't believe that they would bring it back although I would be delighted if they would.

Me too. At least there would be something to watch.

[Jack_Bauer 1]

Here's a thought:

If Enterprise had gone seven years, it would have probably ended its run a few weeks ago. Dang.

Enterprise started in 2001, so it would have just ended its sixth season if it was still running.

 

And I seriously doubt there are any serious discussions about bringing DS9 back.

[Theunicornhunter 2]

Don't forget to watch Jericho tonight :biggrin:

 

 

[TJ Phaserman 2]

well did you guys know there are talks to being DS9 back?

This is news to me. Where did you hear/read this?

 

 

Startrek.com announced it about 2 months ago but i can't seem to find the article. apparently what they are going to do is take off from the novel Star Trek:DS9 novel "Unity" and from the season 6 episode where they're in the 1950's or 60's where he's that writer? well anyway, they are going to resurect the series where the following officers are promoted

 

Colonel Kira - Starfleet Captain Kira

Dax - Full Liutenant, Second Officer USS Defiant

Bashier - Liutenant Commander

 

But however, it's still not known if Odo, Worf, and Nog will be back on the cast, but there is rumors sisko will also return from the prophets. it is rumored to come onto CBS sometime in the near future.

[A l t e r E g o 9]

That'd be cool if true. :biggrin:

[Feddie 0]

well did you guys know there are talks to being DS9 back?

 

 

Rumors power the internet. Don't believe it till you see it. Maybe the article was removed by ST.com because its ... an unverified rumor.

Edited July 21, 2007 by Feddie