I expect you're absolutely right about that. But I still don't see it as a convincing argument that I should waste my time propping up a mediocre show to give the creatives and the network time to work out their differences. Whatever problems they have to contend with really isn't my problem. All I'm really concerned about is whether I find the show entertaining.I think a lot of shows start in sort of a probation period where there's a lot of meddling from the network holding it back from achieving its potential.
I don't expect every show to do it, only the best ones. And I've encountered quite a few over the years that have done exactly that.It's unrealistic to expect every show to be able to grab your attention right from the beginning...
Now that makes a lot more sense to me than watching multiple episodes of a boring show in the hopes that it might get better down the road.I love checking out a show long after it was originally broadcast so I can research what the general consensus is about what's the best the show has to offer and rely on what I find out to guide me through it.
Last edited:

Not my show.
Suddenly the fact that Trip, Archer and the others seemed more flawed and less enlightened, and more human, i.e. more like 20th/21st century humans than the humans on the other shows, especially TNG and VOY, felt incredibly refreshing - as was the conflict between them adn T'Pol early on, after watching a few seasons' worth of VOY's crew-as-one-big-happy-family. And when I actually paid attention, I soon realized that Phlox was smart and funny and convincing as a doctor, and absolutely nothing like Neelix. Once I warmed up to the characters, I enjoyed watching the show even through its weaker episodes. It also helped that I knew that it gets better in the last 2 seasons, so I thought "if I am finding it entertaining and enjoyable enough in season 1, I'm certainly going to love seasons 3 and 4".
I'm sure that, if you look close enough, you'll find 1-2 posts beyond the original one that don't bash Ent.