The ratings can be directly compared though, syndicated shows also get "nielsen ratings" just like network shows. The only difference is with audience share. Audience share can be calculated for a show like Voyager because it was always on at a set time in nearly all markets which wasn't true for DS9. And regarding what's better syndication vs network. At least Voyager had a stable timeslot and people always knew what time it would air, DS9 was left to the whim of the affiliates and shuffled around different timeslots like crazy ranging from 7pm sometimes to 3am others. So I'd hardly say DS9 really had it any easier, yet it still outdid Voyager even during Voyager's most hyped seasons - 1 and 4. I don't really know what your interpretation of "media" is here. I simply mean that DS9 still gets a lot more praise in the media/among critics than Voyager - then and now.
stj is a pain in the ass to be honest, I find my attention drifting after reading about 4 words of anything he writes
If the rating were equal, Paramount wouldn't have tried creating UPN. TNG made TV history for being the first syndicated TV program to ever pull in an audience that equaled the ratings of a major network show. With that being said, if syndication ratings were equal and tabulated next to a major network, no new run show in syndication would ever have a chance of being a success. This is also the major reason why Paramount is proud of TNG and used Voyager to launch it's network in hopes of pulling those major network numbers. If the ratings were tabulated equally, Voyager could have easily stayed in syndication and still been a success(even with the smaller audience it had) Voyager didn't have a stable timeslot anymore than DS9 did. In NYC alone Voyager was bumped around from Monday night to Weds. In other major cities around the country, Voy. and DS9 were on at the same time causing viewers to choose one of the other.
What has Paramount creating UPN got to do with anything? They just wanted to try their hand at making their own network. I fully believe its perfectly logical to compare Voyager's nielsen ratings with DS9's. Are you implying that if Voyager had been syndicated that it would have drawn more viewers than DS9?
I just explained it. TNG pulling in major network numbers gave Paramount the green light to create their own network. You don't just start a networrk to start a network. There has to be a reason a studio would believe it would be a profitable idea. I fully believe in God, angels and all the prophets. It doesn't make it factual. We all have opinions, we all know opinions doesn't equal fact regardless of how logical we believe those opinions are. Nope, not even close. I'm saying that if ratings for syndication were equal to major network, Voyager's could have been shown in syndication and been more successful because you're allowed to maintain lower ratings in syndication that a major network does. It has nothing to do with any comparison to DS9. Both Voy. and ENT wouldn't be at risk of cancellation in syndication with the ratings they had, they were at risk on a major network.
But the fact remains that both shows have Nielsen ratings that are measured on the same scale regardless of whether its measuring syndicated shows or not, and DS9 out performed Voyager in terms of actual viewers, it didn't just out perform it relatively to what was expected of it.
....and means nothing to Paramount. Voy. on a major network meant more to them than DS9 in syndication because of more profit. That's the point you're missing.
Meant nothing to Paramount in terms of what? What are we even talking about anymore? All I said was that DS9 got better nielsen ratings/viewing figures than VOY in their initial runs. So yes, you can compare them. Season 2 finale of Voyager "Basics Part I" got a nielsen rating of 4.9 Season 4 finale of Deep Space Nine "Broken Link" got a nielsen rating of 6.2 Exactly what's wrong with that?
What part of there is more profit to be made from a major network than there is in syndication isn't sinking in? Syndication paid Paramount shit for TNG & DS9 regardless of ratings. Paramount was still taking a loss.
What if, and this is really out there, but what if they made a better show, maybe it would have made money? Was it really worth it to make a shitty show just to... Just to... Um, why did they make a shitty show again?
Paramount was taking a loss on DS9 yet continued to make it? Do you have any evidence of this or are you just grasping? Smells like BS to me. A And besides who cares? All I said was DS9 got better ratings than VOY, that was ALL I was saying and it was true, so why don't you just drop it anyway?
Failing to grasp business economics doesn't make something bullshit. The evidence is in front of us all, Paramount has never held secret anything I've present here. Obviously you do, every time you post about how you're annoyed by the out come of Voyager. I am not in anyway twisting your arm forcing to continue to reply. So don't get upset with me, I'm only addressing the questions you're asking me.
There are the oft-cited arguments, such as imbalanced character development, or too much focus on some characters over others. To me though, the major issue was no love interest for Janeway. Overall, she was a well-characterised character, but a lack of a love interest made her seem unbelievable and poorly written, especially since all other captains had one (Picard/Vash, Sisko/Kassidy, even Archer with the CO of the Columbia).
Janeway said that she didn't believe in fraternizing with crewmates, and since the only long-running love interest she could have would be from the crew this meant no love interest for Janeway.
I assumed she was waiting for Andrew Kim to grow up. He would have been in her age bracket by season 10 and dead by season 16. A perfect pocket of a bubble relationship, since they weren't expected to get home until season 70.
Ok, Exodus. If you want to claim that DS9 lost money for paramount, it doesn't bother me. I was only interest in making my initial observation that DS9 drew more viewers than Voyager and was more popular at the time, regardless of how profitable each show was. Except that they should have given her a love interest to make the show more interesting and deeper. The show desperately needed more relationships - friendship or otherwise.
Please keep track of the conversation. I wasn't the one that engaged you in debate and started asking questions. Its also not personal. Nobody is here to "bother" you.
I go back and forth with Voyager. Overall, it's a pretty solid show. It was the first Star Trek series I saw in first-run the whole way through. My only issue with it was I didn't feel it used its premise fully. The biggest disappointment in the series for me was not getting to see the repercussions of the Borg resistance from Unimatrix Zero. I thought that had amazing potential, but nope. Didn't happen.
Never mind UPN, Paramount wouldn't've gone for it. I cite (as I did in a different thread) Ron Moore's interview where he shows Berman as the "studio guy", whose mantra was always "pull it back, tone it down, play it safe". The biggest (and ultimately insurmountable) obstacle creatively was Berman and his pet writer Braga who put all his edicts into effect on VOY.