D
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Other than get the DS9 pilot on the air before B5, how did Paramount try to stiffle B5?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Other than the things already mentioned, you can also think about how DS9 was set up. Both DS9 and B5 were syndicated shows being shopped to stations at the same time. They have similar premises, but one comes with a proven franchise name whilst the other is brand new. If you're an independent station battling the network affiliates, which one are you going to go for?
I think the only thing that bugs me about the whole DS9/B5 thing is that there are still Trek fans out there who still believe that B5 was a rip-off of DS9, and they've never seen it because of that belief.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>I do not for a moment believe that Into The Fire was anti-climatic. But that's just my opinion. If you want to split hairs though, it wasn't anti-climatic. You might have found it *disappointing*, but that in itself doesn't make it *anti-climatic*.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yet, PsionTen said, "HOWEVER, just because its anti-climatic doesn't mean that I don't think its damn good. It's damn good and its anti-climatic."
I don't think he ever said he was disappointed with it, so why are we arguing?
------------------
It's the quiet ones who change the universe. The loud ones only take the credit.
Other than the things already mentioned, you can also think about how DS9 was set up. Both DS9 and B5 were syndicated shows being shopped to stations at the same time. They have similar premises, but one comes with a proven franchise name whilst the other is brand new. If you're an independent station battling the network affiliates, which one are you going to go for?
I think the only thing that bugs me about the whole DS9/B5 thing is that there are still Trek fans out there who still believe that B5 was a rip-off of DS9, and they've never seen it because of that belief.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>I do not for a moment believe that Into The Fire was anti-climatic. But that's just my opinion. If you want to split hairs though, it wasn't anti-climatic. You might have found it *disappointing*, but that in itself doesn't make it *anti-climatic*.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yet, PsionTen said, "HOWEVER, just because its anti-climatic doesn't mean that I don't think its damn good. It's damn good and its anti-climatic."
I don't think he ever said he was disappointed with it, so why are we arguing?
------------------
It's the quiet ones who change the universe. The loud ones only take the credit.