Being able to spend nearly two decades in daily syndication with very little competition definitely played in Star Trek‘s favor.
It was in the right place at the right time.
Being able to spend nearly two decades in daily syndication with very little competition definitely played in Star Trek‘s favor.
It was in the right place at the right time.
And with the exception of TAS on Saturday mornings (September 1973-December 1974) no Star Trek aired on an American broadcast network for almost 26 years, not until VOY premiered as the flagship series of the new UPN. 26 years. That's almost half of Trek's existence.
Trek became a global hit because of domestic syndication and overseas rerun sales. Without local stations buying syndicated TV packages of a cancelled series Trek would never have become what it did.
Trek became a global hit because of domestic syndication and overseas rerun sales. Without local stations buying syndicated TV packages of a cancelled series Trek would never have become what it did.
Last edited:
There were plenty of shows it had to compete with in the 1960s and later in the 70s. It coukd have gotten lost in the shuffke of new shows and reruns back in the 70s but it didnt. It grew in popularity. It had exceptional writing even its terrible episodes tended to have some glimmers of greatness. If it was a garbage show it never would have become a phenomenon in the 1970s. It was a true comeback story.
Also The Boys definitely was a phenomenon . None of the Kurtzman shows never got near its popularity.
Last edited:
Why do people care about popularity so much?
It's not logical. If Kurtzman failed to garner it, why give it attention? If the older shows are still better then would not those rise in popularity? This idea that we need to focus on failures to prove a point is strange to me.
STAR TREK was always niche. Being a "Trekkie" was a source of teasing for me, even in the 90s in a private school. TOS was not the big deal; TNG was, if not Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers or something else of that ilk.
If popularity is the standard then I don't know if Trek ever had that, save with TNG. TOS was cancelled with only 3 seasons, and fought to get a film, then a spin off, and then eventually a film. ENTERPRISE was cancelled with struggles with viewership, and the TNG films languished heavily.
Again, STAR TREK 2009 had the most aspects of popularity with viewership yet it was declared "Not real Star Trek!"
Bro, these arguments make no sense.
It's not logical. If Kurtzman failed to garner it, why give it attention? If the older shows are still better then would not those rise in popularity? This idea that we need to focus on failures to prove a point is strange to me.
STAR TREK was always niche. Being a "Trekkie" was a source of teasing for me, even in the 90s in a private school. TOS was not the big deal; TNG was, if not Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers or something else of that ilk.
If popularity is the standard then I don't know if Trek ever had that, save with TNG. TOS was cancelled with only 3 seasons, and fought to get a film, then a spin off, and then eventually a film. ENTERPRISE was cancelled with struggles with viewership, and the TNG films languished heavily.
Again, STAR TREK 2009 had the most aspects of popularity with viewership yet it was declared "Not real Star Trek!"
Bro, these arguments make no sense.
Is Maude a Mod?
I realize you probably expect us to read comments like these as good-natured humor or whatever, but what they really are is unnecessarily crude and sexually objectifying toward women. It’s not funny, charming, clever or whatever you like to think. So give it a rest already. You’ve been asked in the past to avoid this kind of locker-room commentary. To no avail, as it seems. So this is an actual warning. Comments to PM.
So again I ask, what makes "The Boys" a phonemenon? I would wager that a majority of people don't even really know what it is other than perhaps seeing it's name somewhere or hearing about it from someone.
I ask because you keep using this (and "Landman") as examples and then using them as comparisons to Kurtzman Trek. Even if we were ever to agree that these others are phenomenal, is it only phenomenal or bust? There aren't shows that are successful that are below that level? I just think your comparisons are off base. Kurtzman Trek can easily be better than the dogwater you seem to think it is while still not close to approaching some thereoritcal "phenomenal" level.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
