 |
 |
Star Trek II (Page 2)
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status:
Offline
|
|
Voyager was the UPN anchor
|
|
45/47
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Administrator  Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Lateralus 
Actually... That's still not entirely correct.
The 'Paramount Network' that was supposed to have launched with a Star Trek series as its anchor was originally set to debut in the late 70's. And the series that was to have been its anchor was 'Star Trek: Phase II'.
Once that piddled out, Phase II became The Motion Picture.
A number of episodes that had been written for the first season of Phase II were later adapted for use with the first season of The Next Generation.
Star Trek: Phase II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
True, but they were trying to get all the Paramount stations aligned to be a network back in '87 when TNG was about to come out. They were going to call it the same thing, "The Paramount Network", and it was going to use TNG as a flagship show. But there was something about it that didn't click-and 20 years later I can't remember what it was. It wasn't even really a "near thing," because Paramount was sort of bumbling around at the time in terms of TV, so it may have been mostly talk and stuff in the Sci Fi magazines.
|
Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus  Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Arizona
Status:
Offline
|
|
Ah... Didn't know that.
Two decades worth of effort come manifest in the form of... UPN. What a waste.
The only thing I ever liked about UPN was that they were Highlander-happy on the weekends.
|
|
I like chicken
I like liver
Meow Mix, Meow Mix
Please de-liv-er
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Administrator Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Yeah, they attracted the "good TV" that other networks sort of shuffled off. Buffy, Highlander, etc. But their other, original programming was sad to bad. Bad sitcoms are not worth making. Bad action series either. The WB did a little better, but they didn't seem to put the time into keeping their original stuff both original and interesting. For example, Jake 2.0 had promise, but they didn't spend the money to keep it going...
I'm quite happy that so many cable networks are running Star Trek now. Spike, for one, has managed to keep the Star Trek hours on TV stats up pretty well, and I'm catching some Voyager episodes I've never seen because of it. I'm not terribly happy with G4's "Star Trek 2.0" because I never got into the MTV letterbox stuff, but at least they show the whole episode.
|
Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: A House of Ill-Repute in the Sky
Status:
Offline
|
|
Are you people telling me you didn't enjoy Sir Mix-a-lot in The Watcher?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top