Too bad Nielsen doesn't track that one.
Why do they still let Braga do TV shows?
- Thread starter Mach5
- Start date
I think that Braga and some of the other Voyager writers mush have been hungover or high when they came up with 'Threshhold' .. I can see it know.. "Hey man I got an awesome idea...how about..how about..(pauses).. Janeway and Paris turn in to lizards and have lizard babies!! ..far out man, lets do it! "
^Yeah, I don't think lennier1 was watching the same show we were...DS9 was pretty darned smart.
becuase we were young and stupid.
We wouldn't fall for that now.
We cheered on Sisko when he laid false evidence about weapons of massdestruction held by the enemy forcing undecided allies to pick up a sword...
We cheered on Sisko, but not President bush when he did exactly the same thing.
that doesn't really seem fair?
In the Pegasus Factor, Picard had the option of cloaking and running, but he said hello Romulans my superiors are asholes, and this might be a good reason to start a war, but I'd rather you didn't.
Perhaps the writers room was writing for a different audience, or they were just not so smart anymore.
Nope, sorry.
People can make whatever excuses they like - no modern Trek series other than TNG maintained its ratings, and they all declined along the very same curve. The syndication market didn't keep changing week by week for eleven years.
The general audience had every opportunity to sample DS9 - and the other Trek shows - and to decide that they liked it better than Xena. They chose otherwise.
Scotty might say to Braga - 'Space is where you belong' but not in charge. What happened to 'Real Time' and Joe Menosky? Eclipsed by the Sy-fy channels stupid time travel show no doubt and the proliferation of time travel rip off movies and elsewhere like Fringe (the joke of sci-fi), etc.. So let's see, why is Sy-fy gonna do it better than Braga and Menosky again? Oh, yea, because it is them doing it and not Braga and Menosky. There's genius for you.. and upper level market stratagy - gatting rid of the middle guys - you know, the guys who know how to do it, and pocket the money yourself. It's the same money after all except that it's theirs and it's still a time travel series.
Ian Keldon
Fleet Captain
^Yeah, I don't think lennier1 was watching the same show we were...
becuase we were young and stupid.
We wouldn't fall for that now.
We cheered on Sisko when he laid false evidence about weapons of massdestruction held by the enemy forcing undecided allies to pick up a sword...
We cheered on Sisko, but not President bush when he did exactly the same thing.
that doesn't really seem fair?
We didn't "cheer on" anyone. ITPM was a character study about a man put in an impossible position and how it ate at him. It was obvious how badly bothered Sisko was by what he had done (that he did because he couldn't see any other option).
It was a much more complex, nuanced, and believable performance than Picard's self-righteous moralizing in "The Pegasus".
No, the TNG writer's room was simply shackled by Roddenberry's "perfect people" rule. A rule the DS9 room wasn't as bound by because of Berman's general neglect of the show in favor of "his" Treks (TNG and VOY).
Nope, sorry.
People can make whatever excuses they like - no modern Trek series other than TNG maintained its ratings, and they all declined along the very same curve. The syndication market didn't keep changing week by week for eleven years.
The general audience had every opportunity to sample DS9 - and the other Trek shows - and to decide that they liked it better than Xena. They chose otherwise.
The general audience prefers X-Factor, Dancing With The Stars, Strictly Come Dancing and the like to most quality dramas on tv. It's got nothing to do with quality.
Ian Keldon
Fleet Captain
Nope, sorry.
People can make whatever excuses they like - no modern Trek series other than TNG maintained its ratings, and they all declined along the very same curve. The syndication market didn't keep changing week by week for eleven years.
The general audience had every opportunity to sample DS9 - and the other Trek shows - and to decide that they liked it better than Xena. They chose otherwise.
You are objectively wrong.
The facts explained:
http://www.trektoday.com/articles/ratings_history.shtml
doubleohfive
Fleet Admiral
Professionals who understand what's actually involved in producing and writing for TV.
Bet you think there are fans posting on the Internet who'd do better?
No, smart people who understood that a show like that had no future did.I mean, he didn't cancel Firefly...or did he?
Well, I guess there's no reason I'd be interested in what you think science fiction on TV should be like.
Next.
THIS.
Nonsense. The "general public" likes all kinds of things, some of which you'd approve of and some you don't. Dragging out the old "we know more about quality than Joe Sixpack and that's why we like what we like" line doesn't wash.
It's funny that the examples you select all have to do with people competing and demonstrating actual talents and skills - some of them well, and some quite badly - as opposed to being fantasy stories that take place in simplified settings featuring narrowly idealized characters. Skiffy fans prefer the latter? Who'da thunk?
I don't claim to know better than the average person. But it's also nonsense to say that great ratings = great quality. Look at the miniscule ratings the likes of The Wire or Treme get compared to crime procedurals or inane comedies.
In point of fact, most of my dramatic tv viewing comes from the likes of AMC or HBO rather than sci-fi or fantasy. The only fantasy I'm watching on tv these days are Game of Thrones, Walking Dead and True Blood. But, hey, just you feel free to jump to a conclusion any time you want to.
In point of fact, most of my dramatic tv viewing comes from the likes of AMC or HBO rather than sci-fi or fantasy. The only fantasy I'm watching on tv these days are Game of Thrones, Walking Dead and True Blood. But, hey, just you feel free to jump to a conclusion any time you want to.
You can't really compare premium cable with network tv.
^Regardless, I think it's silly to attempt to suggest that commercial success and quality go hand in hand. Transformers movies, anyone?
Either that, or Twilight is awesome.
But lets not kid ourselves. The only real measure of success, in just about everything, comes down to one simple question - did you, or did you not accomplish your goal?
On network television theres only one real goal - ratings. Premium cable plays by a different set of rules. 18-49 demo means very little to HBO.
I'm not ashamed to admit that I enjoyed the first one.
^ I was pleasantly surprised by the first half of the first Transformers movie and enjoyed it, mainly for the humour and wit and John Turturro. The second half was just mindless shite.
I'm no elitist, hell, I watch Coronation Street. But there are many good shows out there which just don't find an audience and many crap ones that do.
I'm no elitist, hell, I watch Coronation Street. But there are many good shows out there which just don't find an audience and many crap ones that do.
Ratings do provide some measure of how happy subscribers are with the service. A bunch of low-rated shows is an indicator that subscribers may start bailing. Better to head that off before people start cancelling.
Yeah, I agree. It's a huge myth. It's like the old saying "I may not know anything about art, but I know what I like." I happen to really really really like and enjoy Plan 9 From Outer Space. It's still a s*it movie. While the number of quality TV shows and movies produced over the years that were ignored by the general public numbers in the thousands by this time.
And the one comeback I always throw at people who believe ratings = quality: if that's the case then you must agree with 100% assurance and belief that "Firefly" was an awful, terrible, unwatchable show. Because its ratings were crap and it was cancelled. And the ratings are an indicator of a show's quality (oh and I won't even mention - no I'll mention - that Serenity didn't exactly set the box office on fire. Therefore it was a crap movie, right?) If people to agree to that edict, then I'll consider withdrawing my belief that ratings = quality is a myth. Of course they won't (and I could pick other shows - but Firefly is the best example because everyone says how fantastic it is, yet no one watched it, so extend the logic further and ...)
Alex
The answer to the original question, BTW, is that "they don't *let* Braga make TV " they offer him a great deal of money in exchange for doing what they *ask.*
No one thinks that quality is reliably associated with popularity. However, the oft-raised fannish objection that "failure demonstrates no inadequacy in something I like, because most people like dumb stuff" is thoughtless, defensive bullshit.
No one thinks that quality is reliably associated with popularity. However, the oft-raised fannish objection that "failure demonstrates no inadequacy in something I like, because most people like dumb stuff" is thoughtless, defensive bullshit.
