I went from a 40 pant to a 33 since then.
Dude, that's impressive. Although when DH was in 33's, I found that they were wicked hard to find in most stores. although that could have just been because of the 30 inseam. (We are short, round people.)
I always try to explain to non-scifi people that it's the story that counts--the aliens, robots and spaceships are just a bonus.
edited--that first sentence just ran on and on....
Not to mention Law and Order.
Even Beverly Hills 90210 almost got to 300.
With the exception of
The Simpsons,
everyone's list of long-runners is a litany of crap-tastic stuff.
I don't know, maybe the true metric is how
well
it runs, rather than how long.
Not when the question is WHY DOESN'T SF SEEM TO LAST ON TV?
M*A*S*H ran for a long time, didn't it?
No need to shout. I am sure that Tim has a well-supported argument. I am fiddling around with the defintions of "TV" and "last"-ing.
In recent years, TV has gone to larger channel numbers, for me. If Tim is doing a history lesson on TV ... nah. He is talking about current and coming events.
M*A*S*H ran for a long time, didn't it?
11 years if memory serves.
Grr. The audience for SF on TV is smaller because the audience for SF is smaller in the population.
SF people are not necessarily smarter than anyone else, or better in any other way. They just have the SF-gene.
SF people are not necessarily smarter than anyone else, or better in any other way.
I didn't see anyone claiming otherwise.
I don't think that there's a select group of "SF people" who are the only ones who'll watch SF shows. That's what I tried to say before. If the audience is that limited, it's odd that so many successful movies are SF.
Lost was already mentioned; if I stick to the broadcast newtorks, I can think of Ghost Whisperer, Smallville, and Supernatural. If you're defining the genre in such a way that only cult shows count, then sure, there's only a cult audience.
Lost is not better than Eureka. Take that back.
It's possibly true that I lack perspective.