In article <13r2a26103nt9ab@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
A Watcher <stocksami@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Alan F wrote:
> > jayembee wrote:
> >> David B <bothecat3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>> thelostguy@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Can anyone confirm whether this was a season finale or a series
> >>>> finale?
> >>> No, SciFi Channel hasn't announced if they're cancelling or
> >>> renewing it yet.
> >>
> >> Sci Fi initially ordered two seasons. Of course, that's before
> >> it proved itself as a complete ratings loser. If Sci Fi keeps
> >> its order for a second season, they're even more bat**** crazy
> >> than we thought.
> >>
> >> -- jayembee
> >
> > Maybe the producers of Flush Gordon have incredibly compromising
> > pictures of the NBC-Universal network executives who decide which
shows
> > to keep. As good an explanation for this show as any.
> >
> > I have the last 3 or 4 episodes on the DVR which I have not yet
> > watched (with the fast forward button handy), but the show was
improving
> > after the sheer awfulness of the first few episodes. Up to lousy or
> > stupid from awful, but hey it was an improvement. Given that the
ratings
> > were no longer publicized after the 1st several episodes, there must
> > have been terrible. However, if Sci-Fi does not have any replacement
> > shows in the wings between the writer's strike, BSG coming to an end,
> > fading ratings for Stargate Atlantis and few good prospects in
> > development, maybe they will renew Flush just to have something to put
> > on Friday nights. Rather see them try something more ambitious and
> > better written, but I am not a cable network executive,
> >
> > Alan
> >
>
> As bad as Flash Gordon has been at times and despite it's low budget, it
> is still better than those awful made for TV movies the SciFI channel
> shows. I'd rather watch a low budget show with an interesting story
> than some god awful horror flick.
We have the Asylum to thank for those.
--
Star Trek 08:
No Shat, No Show.
|
