View Single Post
Old December 25 2013, 12:55 AM   #72
CorporalCaptain
Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Would a series set after voyager have been more of a success

Pel the Yeshiva Ferengi wrote: View Post
I'd be interesting to know why, and by what metric, Baywatch didn't do very well in syndication, for starters.
Another claim I did not make. Baywatch did quite well in the first half of its syndicated run. It was only in the last half of the 1990s that it ran into trouble.
Well, honestly, it sounded to me as if you made that claim. What you said was this:
Pel the Yeshiva Ferengi wrote: View Post
Excuses such as that the syndication market was contracting just obfuscate the issue, which is simply that Star Trek, or at least the Star Trek that was being aired, was just another one of the things that people didn't want to watch in large numbers.
I invite you to research the ratings history for shows like Hercules, Xena, Babylon 5, and Baywatch. They parallel the ratings decline of Deep Space Nine. Should we assume that all those shows, all of which found themselves moved from prime time slots on Saturdays to Midnight slots on Sundays (if they were even reordered), were afflicted, at least in part, with the same disease? There was indeed a ratings ceiling that started to emerge--and lower--in the mid-1990s for syndication.
Pel the Yeshiva Ferengi wrote: View Post
The non-sci-fi one of the ones you mentioned did well. Very well. The others you mentioned were formulaic sci-fi entries with only niche appeal. What more should have been expected? They got their day and then some, as they all stayed on longer in syndication than they could have on network. The results were nothing that couldn't have been expected based on content alone.
Are you talking about Baywatch, which failed to produce a spin-off in the contracting market and, in a final gasp, relocated to Hawaii (because the state threw tons of money at them) only to fail? Please do the research.
I took that to mean that you claimed that Baywatch steadily declined just like DS9. It didn't (remember, DS9 steadily declined over its whole run), and here's a third link to prove it. And now you're saying otherwise, too. That's fine. I misspoke in this thread, and I believe I have corrected myself.

Nah, I've said enough in this thread for the time being. Why don't you post some links to back up what you're saying?
The information that is required is not readily available on the internet. It requires a university library. Since you are the one disputing my assertion, it's up to you to put forward evidence.
Actually, the burden of proof is on the one making the assertion in the first place. A university will teach you that. If it's indeed so that the Internet doesn't have such evidence, except behind a paywall, then so be it.

On the other hand, I believe I have at least supported my assertion that the causes of Star Trek's TV demise can't be blamed on issues with respect to syndication, which, by the way, is all I said on this matter in the first place. To be honest, I'm sort of losing track of what it is we're arguing about. What I'd said was this:
Coach Comet wrote: View Post
Excuses such as that the syndication market was contracting just obfuscate the issue, which is simply that Star Trek, or at least the Star Trek that was being aired, was just another one of the things that people didn't want to watch in large numbers.

To put it another way, things that interested Star Trek fans did not interest most people. This way attempting to solve the problem by changing the century, the specific setting (ship, station, starbase, etc.), or the available species, I think that it's just a symptom of this. For every fan that thinks that these sorts of ideas are totally awesome, there are many more people who think that they're ever more ridiculous. That's a bad equation for a prospective TV show.
For the record, I never denied that the general market trends mattered.

This isn't the first time this conversation has come up on the board. Rather than let Star Trek itself take responsibility for its share of the blame in its own demise on TV, the response has generally been, "Oh, it wasn't its fault; the market was just contracting," or some similar excuse.

I'm saying that the larger problem was Trek itself. TNG was a hit in its day, and a lot of people gave DS9 a chance, at least at first when the iron was still hot. Once TNG went off the air, there were 11 years of Star Trek, totalling in combination over 16 seasons, representing chance after chance to get it right. With so many chances at bat, how can it not be mainly Star Trek's own fault that it declined so far in ratings, and steadily, year after year, season after season?!?

So far, I haven't ventured an opinion on what the ratings of TNG season 8 would have looked like. I think that they would have gone down; there are indications in the chart I posted at the beginning of the thread that they were already starting to do just that in season 7. However, again, I think that that was because TNG had given all it had to offer, and not primarily because of "the market." By the end, it had already become quite formulaic (in the true sense of the term).
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote