Santa Wookiee wrote:
They refers to lobbyists and congresspeople, as well as the network people themselves.
Two outta three of those groups don't even have to pretend to care about poor people and the other group pretends but doesn't.
How does broadcast vs. cable make a difference for Star Trek? I must have missed that conversation.
This is the wrong forum for Star Trek
so it doesn't get discussed much here. But networks have been migrating for years to mass-market entertainment - CSI,
reality shows - while the niche/genre stuff has migrated to basic and premium cable. Sci fi just doesn't qualify as mass entertainment anymore, because the "mass" has become uh "massier," which isn't a bad thing, when niche entertainment can prosper on basic cable.
was cancelled for having 4M viewers but shows like Mad Men
survive just fine with 2-3M, so why not just put Star Trek
in an environment where reaching a niche audience is not a problem?
The difference is, on cable, each of those 2-3M eyeballs are more valuable, because of subscription fees, and therefore can be more profitable than 4M on wholly ad-based network TV. Don't try to get more people to watch Star Trek
by blanding it down and ruining it so that you end up appealing to no one; put Star Trek
where the viewers are more valuable and can support production.
Well in the US the voters always vote on the issue, so if it is approved by the voters how can anyone complain.
I'd love to see how that would work out.
But it would never work out. Out of a population of 308M, the biggest hit shows get under 30M. That means every show is not watched by 90% of the population, so why should Americans vote for anything to be made by their tax dollars when most of them are indifferent to everything
currently on the air?