• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Braga simply did not watch the show

While it was on, DS9 was loosing Paramount money.
Nonsense. Deep Space Nine was losing audience over time, there's no question about that. But even in the Star Trek universe, you don't keep a show on the air for seven years that's losing money. Deep Space Nine was still bringing in enough audience members to sell advertising and make the studio money, or it would have been canceled.
 
While it was on, DS9 was loosing Paramount money.
Nonsense. Deep Space Nine was losing audience over time, there's no question about that. But even in the Star Trek universe, you don't keep a show on the air for seven years that's losing money. Deep Space Nine was still bringing in enough audience members to sell advertising and make the studio money, or it would have been canceled.
*cough*Voyager*cough*

Voyager ran for a full 7 years with less of an audience than DS9. There was no doubt Voyager cost Paramount money.

Loosing an audience is loosing money. Ds9 was loosing it's audience, thus loosing money for Paramount which in turn cost them sponsors. Combined with Paramount doing little to promote the show, which is a complaint many Niner's have. Voyager got 3x the promotion DS9 did. I'm not sure what "even in the Star Trek universe" is supposed to mean considering they don't have TV and the Federation doesn't use money. No to mention the Trek universe is pure fiction.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer - UPN lost money when they bought it from WB because it was past it 100th ep. but they still took that gamble and allowed to too run 2 more years. It's the main reason why they didn't pick up "Angel" as well.

Feel free to look all that up, it's all well documented.
 
Loosing an audience is loosing money. Ds9 was loosing it's audience, thus loosing money for Paramount which in turn cost them sponsors.
There's a big difference between losing money and decreasing net profits. If you want I can explain it to you. :)
 
Loosing an audience is loosing money. Ds9 was loosing it's audience, thus loosing money for Paramount which in turn cost them sponsors.
There's a big difference between losing money and decreasing net profits. If you want I can explain it to you. :)
No, I'm well educated on the subject.
Got a degree and e'erythang.

However, if you wish to explain it for others I wouldn't mind. ;)
 
Voyager and Buffy were both being used as a method of attempting to prop up a network -- UPN -- that was doing horribly. They had a secondary purpose beyond selling advertising dollars on their particular programs. In addition, Paramount was not the one losing money on Voyager, UPN was. Yes, I know they were under the same corporate parent, but they were separate entities. UPN paid Paramount the licensing fee for all seven years of Voyager. I assure you Paramount turned a profit.

Deep Space Nine was syndicated, however. Paramount had absolutely nothing to gain by letting it run for seven seasons unless it was profitable for them. They had, as has been discussed here, decreasing net profit as the audience figures declined. But I guarantee you they never lost money on the show.
 
Voyager and Buffy were both being used as a method of attempting to prop up a network -- UPN -- that was doing horribly. They had a secondary purpose beyond selling advertising dollars on their particular programs. In addition, Paramount was not the one losing money on Voyager, UPN was. Yes, I know they were under the same corporate parent, but they were separate entities. UPN paid Paramount the licensing fee for all seven years of Voyager. I assure you Paramount turned a profit.

Deep Space Nine was syndicated, however. Paramount had absolutely nothing to gain by letting it run for seven seasons unless it was profitable for them. They had, as has been discussed here, decreasing net profit as the audience figures declined. But I guarantee you they never lost money on the show.
I stand corrected.

Yep, you are right.
I can't argue that. :techman:
 
^ Wow. I... I don't think I've ever seen that before. Someone actually engaging in a reasonable debate and changing their mind. That's... extraordinary. :)
 
^ Wow. I... I don't think I've ever seen that before. Someone actually engaging in a reasonable debate and changing their mind. That's... extraordinary. :)
Yes, I sometimes give credit where credit is due. :lol:


..but seriously, you were right and deserved the credit for being so. It's only fair.
Especially if an answer can be used to educate, which yours was.
 
^ Wow. I... I don't think I've ever seen that before. Someone actually engaging in a reasonable debate and changing their mind. That's... extraordinary. :)
Maybe this philosophy will spread to other threads?

Maybe?
 
Maybe this philosophy will spread to other threads?

Maybe?

It's funny you should say that because, at least in the sub forums I frequent most, it's been like a breath of fresh air today in that regard. It's even made me feel less hostile to the "Everything Sucks but TOS" crowd. Frankly, it makes me uncomfortable- like sunshine during a rainstorm :)


-Withers-​
 
The premise of this thread is misguided. As an exec on the show, Braga would most certainly have had to view numerous cuts of each episode before they went to broadcast. It doesn't mean he paid attention to continuity details as much as some would seem to prefer, but the man simply HAD to watch the show -- it was his job.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top