Comment Re:Slow start could have been strong finish, too (Score 1) 392
I hear this argument all the time ('Star Trek always takes a while to get good') and I've never understood it.
Why should Star Trek be held to a different standard than any other TV show? Most non-Trek shows aren't accorded the same luxury, they have to hit the ground running or they'll be cancelled. Plenty of shows manage to do this. Firefly was excellent from day one. The new Battlestar Galactica: not one weak episode in the bunch. Even the slow starters like B5 and Farscape had hit their stride by the end of the first season and established themselves as unique, distinctive shows.
Enterprise finally delivered in its *fourth* season. Unfortunately, it was too late -- nobody was watching any more. But if it hadn't had the Star Trek name, it wouldn't even have lasted one year. You can't realistically argue that it should have been given even more of a chance than it already had.
Why should Star Trek be held to a different standard than any other TV show? Most non-Trek shows aren't accorded the same luxury, they have to hit the ground running or they'll be cancelled. Plenty of shows manage to do this. Firefly was excellent from day one. The new Battlestar Galactica: not one weak episode in the bunch. Even the slow starters like B5 and Farscape had hit their stride by the end of the first season and established themselves as unique, distinctive shows.
Enterprise finally delivered in its *fourth* season. Unfortunately, it was too late -- nobody was watching any more. But if it hadn't had the Star Trek name, it wouldn't even have lasted one year. You can't realistically argue that it should have been given even more of a chance than it already had.
