Quote:
| It's funny that some people, me among them, will give an average sci-fi show like Enterprise more than a season to prove it's worth. Yet with Firefly some people don't want to give the thing more than a couple of episodes. SO how long would we give it with the ST brand? Or are we happier to watch a show when we know it'll be around for 7 years? |
There are actually a bunch of people who at least make noise about "why should we commit to a show if we don't know it'll be around in six weeks?"; I've never really understood that. I mean, if it's entertaining
now, it's worth it, right?
Conversely, the "hey, your average 'Star Trek' series takes two years to find its feet so watch it in case it gets good" argument doesn't sway me much. TV's a darwinian environment, so shows should be good from minute one.
Quote:
| Fox shat on 'Undeclared' and 'The Tick', so I expect nothing good from them. |
Other than at least a few weeks of a show you enjoyed. It's not like Fox is notably worse than other networks in this regard. At least they're not UPN - Fox does actually at least try to program good, unique shows and hope that they find more than a niche audience. What other network even takes a chance on "The Tick"?
A "Gadget Western" a la "Wild Wild West" and "Brisco" that ran on UPN for a few months. Starred Richard Dean Anderson (when he was still squeamish about using a gun) and John de Lancie, was written by former Star Trek guy Mike Piller, and featured probably a few more Trek in-jokes than was good for it. It had some charm, like Anderson's authentic Old West facial hair, but suffered by being too soon after "Brisco" and not nearly as good.