Lady Britannia

Soccer/football is actually one of the simplest sports to understand. The basic rules are few in number. The Cosmos/Pele example I believe is false. The old NASL collapsed because it expanded too quickly and far too many washed-up players jumped on the bandwagon. The MLS is growing slowly but surely. Soccer in the United States is being developed at the grassroots, building a steady fanbase and a careful eye must always be placed on making certain that native players are not pushed out of the game by expensive imports long past their best

The sheer will of an illegal immigrant will be colossally superior to the strength of a fence.

I wish them all the best and I hope football can develop further in the United States.

Perhaps, Lady Britannia, you should refrain from commenting on a country that you know nothing about.

 

I have been to both public and private schools and they both maintain the same standard of excellence. The federal and state governments have a set curriculum that both sets of schools must adhere to.

Hence my use of the word "perhaps" when I said "perhaps the state schools in Australia are inferior to private schools" which followed the sentence "any number of reasons could explain it"

Together, those eight words I posted suggest a possible scenario which could explain the situation.

And it's entirely possible also that you were very lucky and attended a state school which was very good, but as school standards often vary, it's also possible that the child in question wasn't necessarily as fortunate.

This is not a debate about religion. It is about boy and why he got teased. You do not believe in religion does not mean everyone has to follow your own anti-belief system.

The school only followed the parents decision to use the maden name, because they know he will get teased, which is not trivial to the family. When the family changed their mind on them, and not give them options they had the right to drop the child from enrollment.

I said nothing about anyone having to follow my belief system. Just because I say something doesn't mean it should be taken as a command that MUST be followed. Actually it IS about religion. The whole reason the child was rejected by the school was because of religious intolerance and hysteria.

If the name was so trivial why did they pull him from public school in the first place?

Any number of reasons could explain it. Perhaps state schools in Australia are inferior to private schools.

He's only five years old. They still have time to spare him a life of religious indoctrination. The school are so narrow-minded, they rejected him for something as trivial as his name. This should indicate to the parents that maybe religious schooling isn't the way to go.

The mobile phone developer offered a more concise and professional explanation to the BBC, so it's perfectly reasonable to say that his Star Trek comment was in jest. Something whimsical. It's 2007 now and we still don't use mobile phones like the Trek communicator. We don't flip it open and speak into it from a distance, nor do we tap our chests and speak openly for all to hear. As I see it, there's nothing serious to suggest this technology was inspired by Trek. Business opportunities are the more likely source. There are many pieces of technology used in everyday life that however vaguely resemble things seen in Star Trek and other sci-fi, but I doubt strongly that their development was influenced by Star Trek. The JORDY device seems named in an affectionate way, simply because it deals with blindness. I find it funny that any woman could claim that they were inspired by TOS since it basically showed women either in eye-candy minor roles or in Uhura's case, a meaningless role on the bridge, like a background detail. She was basically a piece of equipment. If women wanted to be inspired by science, then surely Marie Curie would provide it. If they wanted to be adventurous explorers, then Amelia Earhart comes to mind. The holodeck and the concept of a virtual reality environment actually dates back not to TNG, but rather in the 1950's and Morton Hellig's "experience theatre". As for the franchise "inspiring" people to go into the space program, medicine, and engineering, it's nothing exceptional in that regard. The space program was in operation long before Star Trek came along and previous science fiction like Jules Verne would have captured minds before Roddenberry.

I don't doubt that some people find and have found Star Trek influential and inspiring.

But "an effect on the WORLD?"

Please, let's get real.

"Mobile phones" and "celluar phones" are the same thing. I am aware of that. They had their origin in World War II and in taxicab radios and two-way radios in police cars. I'm talking about the origin of the concepts not the exact technology. Cooper simply invented the modern version of it using technologicals ideas that pre-dated Star Trek. He may have claimed Star Trek was his inspiration, but the first mobile phones looked nothing like anything used in Star Trek, and even the communication devices in Star Trek were not used like mobile/cell phones. The first commercial mobile phones looked like giant bricks. I don't recall Captain Kirk ever using one of those. In fact, I would say he's probably joking when he says that Star Trek inspired him. During a BBC Chat, he explains his real inspiration:

BBC NEWS ONLINE: Tell us what inspired that vision of a personal handheld phone.

 

MARTY: The time was the late 1960s. There was one telephone company in the US, one in Britain and one in Japan and so forth. In our case it was AT&T and they were the largest company in the world and they had invented this thing called cellular. Their invention was car telephones. Can you imagine? We believed people didn't want to talk to cars and that people wanted to talk to other people and the only way we at Motorola, this little company, could prove this to the world was to actually show we could build a cellular telephone, a personal telephone. Something that would represent an individual so you could assign a number not to a place, not to a desk, not to a home but to a person.

So you do not own a cell phone?

No, I have a "mobile" phone.

And their development had nothing to do with Star Trek.

The origin of mobile phones goes back to the 1940's

My topic is "What effect has Star Trek had on the world?"

Virtually none.

They handled it in the best possible way today.

Nothing formal.

Just personal reflection while the day proceeded as normal.

I always took "Enterprise Class" to refer to the "class" of students training on the "Enterprise" simulator.

The refit I regard as being a Constitution Class starship.

I'm not a believer that Roswell was "alien" related. It's been said that government's cover up UFO activity by saying "these are military tests that people are seeing". I find it more credible that various governments actually test military projects and use the "UFO" explanation and stories to throw people off-course and get the conspiracy theorists turning in circles.

"Gummy"

After being on the job for 25 years, and after dealing with the aftermath of 9/11 and I remember how on edge we all were in the days that followed, it almost seems like LB was almost nonchalant about what is happening in her homeland. Something like that bothers me. I'm sure that she has her reasons, and I may be misinterpreting what she is saying. But when an attack happens anywhere in the world of that magnitude, I pretty much go to Red Alert automatically. Maybe it's just me....

I am not "nonchalant" but I like many Britons are simply not prepared to alter a way of life because of terrorists. I would (admittedly speculate) that the reason you go to "red alert" is that as an American, living a life where terrorists do pose a daily threat on your own soil is generally unfamilar to your culture, whereas in the UK, it's something we have lived with for a very long time. Granted, one should keep their eyes open for the possibility they may see something to report to the authorities if it is suspicious, but there are limits. The enemy are counting on spreading fear, paranoia and disruption. That's what terrorists do. But they can only "win" if you let them get into your head.

LB, because becareful and not become complacent in your beliefs.

What complacency? Terrorism in the UK is nothing new. As such, the best way to deal with it is to live life as normal and let the police and security/intelligence services do their job. No point in becoming paranoid about it.

We'll be fine. Terrorism has been part of life in the UK for decades. First it was the Irish. Now it's Islam-related. Next it will be someone else. We deal with it as it comes. Nothing to get hysterical about, as thankfully British society rarely does about anything.

But being that Patrick was obviously the perfect choice to be captain of the series, they probably should have simply changed Picard into an Englishman. I mean, why not? England has a storied naval tradition. And Picard seemed rather fond of Nelson anyway, often mentioning Trafalgar during moments of crisis. I doubt a Frenchman would think back so fondly on the Lord Admiral.

I agree with this post. It makes logical sense.

Maybe aliens really are here - they're taking over our planet.

Hopefully they can do a better job than humans have thus far.

"Alterego"

But younger fans, with no real idea of the depths of Trek, killed it off in their hatred of Berman

Blaming the fans achieves nothing. If Berman couldn't produce good enough material to satisfy the fans then the fault lies with him and those who approved his work. I strongly doubt anyone rejects Berman's material due to the fact it's too deep to comprehend or appreciate.

Shocking news really. I and my cousin were stunned when we heard this news. Benoit's legacy and all his accomplishments destroyed. Two completely innocent people just killed senselessly. Condolences to the families from both of us.

"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.

"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.

"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.

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.

Yes, ratings did drop off during the second season. And they did so substantially. But, during the third and fourth seasons, the ratings did improve. But not enough to warrant a fifth season. Which, had they been given a chance, may have been their finest season yet. But this is but one of many things that will will never know.

Sorry, but the Nielsen Ratings did not improve in the third and fourth seasons.

In season 1 the ratings fell between the high of (the first episode's) 7.0 to the low of 3.0.

In season 2 the ratings fell between the high of 3.9 to the low of 2.2

In season 3 the ratings fell between the high of 3.0 to the low of 2.0

In season 4 the ratings fell between the high of (the finale episode's) 2.2 to the low of 1.4

Clearly the ratings got progressively worse.