is TOS the only 'true' Star Trek?

[J.T.B.]

But it's not really comparable. TNG was first-run syndication, where the competition was considerably less than it would be in a network prime-time slot. TNG, like TOS, never cracked the top 30 in ratings, and it is highly doubtful it would have lasted as long as it did on one of the big four broadcast networks.

That's not entirely accurate, though. During TNG's real heydey, around the time of the 5th and 6th seasons, it was pulling in ratings that went head-to-head with its network competition. In particular, I remember Paramount being very proud of the fact that TNG was beating the ratings for Monday Night Football.

So, what's not accurate? There's no way to really compare TNG head-to-head with network competition because it aired at different times all over the country. And there is no reason to assume that TNG would have made it to a 5th or 6th season in network prime time. Maybe, but it would be a lot harder than in syndication, where it was the dominant property in the market.

 

[CoveTom]

In its fifth season (1991-1992), TNG averaged 11.5 million viewers. During that same year, Law & Order -- a major network show that was successful enough to run 20 seasons -- averaged 12.3 million. The Cosby Show averaged 13.6 million.

Regardless of where or at what time it was airing, TNG was pulling viewership numbers comparable to the major network shows of the time. And although airing in syndication has some advantages in terms of competition and such, it also has some disadvantages -- such as getting viewership in markets that choose to air the show at 3 am on Thursday.

My point is not that TNG's situation is directly comparable to a network show. But it WAS pulling network-level ratings, and I think the amount of popularity it enjoyed at the time could have translated to a network without difficulty. And I think it's the only Trek show that really could have accomplished network success at that level.

 

[J.T.B.]

In its fifth season (1991-1992), TNG averaged 11.5 million viewers. During that same year, Law & Order -- a major network show that was successful enough to run 20 seasons -- averaged 12.3 million. The Cosby Show averaged 13.6 million.

Regardless of where or at what time it was airing, TNG was pulling viewership numbers comparable to the major network shows of the time. And although airing in syndication has some advantages in terms of competition and such, it also has some disadvantages -- such as getting viewership in markets that choose to air the show at 3 am on Thursday.

I still don't see how what I wrote is not accurate. "Where or at what time it was airing" is at the heart of the issue, because if it were a network show it would have the same competition across markets and that would affect its numbers.

My point is not that TNG's situation is directly comparable to a network show. But it WAS pulling network-level ratings, and I think the amount of popularity it enjoyed at the time could have translated to a network without difficulty. And I think it's the only Trek show that really could have accomplished network success at that level.

Maybe, but there's no way to know, because see above. It would be interesting to see the ratings of network shows that were renewed 1987-1991, that might give a better idea of whether TNG would have made the cut in its early seasons.

 

[BillJ]

Maybe, but there's no way to know, because see above. It would be interesting to see the ratings of network shows that were renewed 1987-1991, that might give a better idea of whether TNG would have made the cut in its early seasons.

I'm not sure ratings would tell the complete story.

Would TNG draw as many viewers if it had to compete directly with Monday Night Football or the Cosby Show? What if it had ended up on Fox which had limited penetration during its early years? Would it have even been the same show had it aired on a network?

Was TNG popular and successful? Of course. But you simply can't look at that popularity and success in a vacuum. Would we still be talking about it today if it had been called Space Patrol? Would it have gotten the huge budget right out of the gate if it wasn't trading on the success of the Star Trek name? Would it have gotten prime time slots if it hadn't been associated with Star Trek? Would the general public have been eager to watch it if it hadn't been associated with Star Trek? I think the answer to all those questions is 'no'.

 

[J.T.B.]

Maybe, but there's no way to know, because see above. It would be interesting to see the ratings of network shows that were renewed 1987-1991, that might give a better idea of whether TNG would have made the cut in its early seasons.

I'm not sure ratings would tell the complete story.

Would TNG draw as many viewers if it had to compete directly with Monday Night Football or the Cosby Show? What if it had ended up on Fox which had limited penetration during its early years? Would it have even been the same show had it aired on a network?

I agree completely, but like I said it might give a better idea.

 

[CoveTom]

There's absolutely no question that TNG rode the wave of the popularity of TOS. But the original discussion was more about whether TOS or TNG was more popular at the time they originally aired.

TOS always struggled as a network series. It only managed to eek out three seasons, and even that was with a lot of turmoil. It was only after it left the air and went into syndication that it's popularity exploded, and then came the movies which, especially with TWOK and TVH, were blockbusters.

TNG, OTOH, was strong at the time it originally aired. It had solid ratings, it ran for seven seasons, and it was profitable and popular enough at the end of its run to warrant an immediate bump to the big screen.

My contention is not that overall, in the grand 50-year history of Star Trek, that TNG is more popular than TOS. No question TOS wins that contest. It's the iconic one. It's the one that has endured the longest. It's the one the public still knows to this day. And, let's face it, it's the one Paramount went back to when they needed a new start for Trek.

My contention is only that at the time they originally aired, TNG did better than TOS. And that TNG was phenomenally popular during that seven year period of time.

 

[Kinokima]

My contention is only that at the time they originally aired, TNG did better than TOS. And that TNG was phenomenally popular during that seven year period of time.

But my question is does that really matter in the grand scheme of things?

Also looking at all factors we can say the reason TOS failed during its original run is because it wasn't given a fair chance.

Keep in mind this whole discussion started when someone said TNG won because it stayed on the air for 7 years instead of 3 but you do have to look at extenuating circumstances.

I think neither series really wins, but people of course should not discount TOS because it only had 3 seasons. That isn't to say we should discount TNG either.

I don't think there should be a competition at all really.

 

[jazzstick]

-Relics
-Trials and Tribblelations
-Flashback
-In a Mirror, Darkly

All these are considered among the best episodes in their respective series. None of the 4 spinoffs have this kind of homage from each other;

The spinoffs are called spinoffs;

Kirk is mentioned in dialogue in the other series (except ENT of course -- but they went up to consider bring Shatner for their 6th season); Spock and Sarek were in TNG;

McCoy appeared in the TNG pilot; the next episode (Naked Now) was a remake of one of TOS, complete with Picard looking in awe at "Kirk's ship" in a computer screen.

TNG wasn't let spawn a movie series unless Shatner was in it, despite the absurdity of the plot that made it so.

TNG does not even has a proper name: its simply The Next
Generation (weekly reminding Kirk's was the first)

The 2009 reboot is TOS. Made millions.

I wonder.

I often wonder if slugs are just homeless snails...