I'm hesitant to get into the question of critics, and why they say
what they say, because obviously anything I say is going to proceed from
an agenda, and a certain bias on my part. So if we accept that going in,
then I suppose I can speculate a little....

As has been pointed out here by others, SF television has a history
of getting crummy reviews. I haven't seen one SF show, however good or
bad, that didn't start out getting *creamed* by reviewers. Some of the
TNG original reviews that've been posted here are a hell of a lot worse
than most of what the critics have said about us. The majority of them
do not like SF, don't care for SF, don't understand SF, and want to stick
it in a pigeon hole, "Oh, it's like this." What they don't recognize,
they try to make fit their preconceptions...or they pan it.

Also, there's the issue of pride. A lot of critics are (now) saying
that TNG is this wonderful show (where once they derided it). Same with
DS9, and that everything else is crap. Anything that might be perceived
by them as a threat *to their published opinion* is something that they
will attack.

Mind, I'm separating out those who might not particularly like the
show from those who are going out of their way to assassinate the series
before it even gets going. I'd point to the USA Today review that just
came out as emblematic of that approach. He says that yes, it might get
the ratings, it might succeed, but you should in essence be ashamed if
that happens. People have targeted this show with *incredible* vehemence
bordering on character assassination.

I'd separate this out from some reviews that've come in, in the LA
Times, and Hollywood Reporter, that didn't gush, that raised concerns,
some of which I agree with. They were actual analyses of the show, it's
strengths and weaknesses, which are helpful, I think, to us and to the
viewer. I've *been* a reviewer, and I'm sorry, but the equivilent of
"IT SUCKS" isn't a review. It's a Beavis line.

Beyond that, deponent sayeth not.

jms