Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Media

Spielberg's Taken 429

Posted by CmdrTaco from the stuff-to-see dept.
A few people submitted asking for an open discussion for Spielberg's Taken miniseries that premiered last night on SciFi last night. I watched it, and I gotta say I dug it, and set Tivo up to snag the rest of it. I wish that they were spacing it out a bit more (in terms of scheduling, not in terms of leaving the Earth's atmosphere ;) What do folks think?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Spielberg's Taken More

Spielberg's Taken

Comments Filter:
  • I want my Stargate. Will someone please take Taken to some other day of the week?

    Kent

  • Oh great, Slashdot likes it.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonvmous Coward ( 589068 ) on Tuesday December 03, 2002 @01:26PM (#4802650)
    ... that means it'll be cancelled soon.
    • Somebody buy the domain name "savetaken.com" quick :)
    • it'll be cancelled soon
      well given that its a miniseries, it'll be off the air due to natural causes soon enough.
      • The correct term for which, as all TV aficionados know, is miniseries rot. Originally, all television series were planned as miniseries, but the scourge or miniseries rot kicked in and none of them lasted for more than fifteen episodes or so. Finally, scientists from NBC and Bell Labs, working together, discovered how to prevent miniseries rot. The problem is that their discovery was both very expensive and very unpredictable: there was a 75% chance that any product treated against miniseries rot would instead turn out to be total crap. So the television producers of the last sixty years have faced a dilemma: they can produce short-lived, high quality programs or they can produce longer-lasting programs that cost a lot and have a 75% chance of being "Emeril." I, for one, am glad that I don't have to make that decision.
        • 75% percent? If only 75% of TV series were crap I'd be amazed! I'd place the number more at 90% or higher.

        • In other countries most shows are miniseries. In Brazil for instance, though a show might last 18 months, it has a story arc that will eventaully take it to some end. If the show is very popular then sub-plots will be added to lengthen it. If it is a stinker it will get resolved quickly. But the point of it is to tell a story that ends. Now I am not a big fan of the soap-opera production values or the same show being on everyday at 8 pm, but the idea of a story to be told with a beginning and end is interesting.

          Not so in the USA. How many years has Friends been running? Has anything really happened? Not really. Most shows in the USA feel the need to conclude an episode with all issues being resolved so that nothing has changed in the world that has been created. Contrast this with 24. It has a season-long plot and watching the episodes in order is important. Hopefully the popularity of 24 will lead to more shows that are actually going somewhere plot-wise instead of running in place for the whole season, an hour at a time.

      • Re:Oh great, Slashdot likes it.. (Score:5, Funny)

        by Anonvmous Coward ( 589068 ) on Tuesday December 03, 2002 @01:56PM (#4802973)
        "well given that its a miniseries, it'll be off the air due to natural causes soon enough."

        Well I'm glad you were around to clear that up. I apologize to everybody who thought my joke was funny.

    • Although this is a miniseries, I have been thinking about why shows we like fail and why shows like Just Shoot Me succeed wildly.

      I think it basically boils down to one issue - shows we like are not conducive to advertising. The most effective TV show is one where you do not "feel" the difference between the show and the commercials. You sit quietly in alpha state, and slurp up whatever comes out of the TV. Thinking is counterproductive to this effect. Shows like Just Shoot Me or Friends are perfect examples of this phenomenon. It is physically painful to think while watching these shows.

      I tend to watch scifi and documentaries. I mercilessly channel surf to avoid even a second of commercial time, and am never "caught" unaware that I am sitting watching commercials.

      I think the reality is that television programming is not a matter of entertainment/information in exchange for watching ads, but a matter of producing content just interesting enough for the average person to watch, but not so interesting that they resist the commercials. Quality, therfore, is ancillary to the entire process.

  • I missed the first episode, does anyone know if they'll re-air it? I can't seem to find the info on SciFi's site.

  • What do folks think? (Score:5, Funny)

    by tmark ( 230091 ) on Tuesday December 03, 2002 @01:27PM (#4802663)
    I was absolutely Taken by it.
    (cymbal crash)
    Thank you, I'll be here all week.

  • i can't believe it (Score:4, Funny)

    by tps12 ( 105590 ) on Tuesday December 03, 2002 @01:29PM (#4802678) Homepage Journal
    I watched it, and I gotta say I dug it, and set Tivo up to snag the rest of it.

    So you'll watch it without commercials, the Sci-Fi Channel will lose money on the show, and in a few months you'll be running a story about how a group of fans are raising money to keep it on the air...incredible.
    • By saying that he set up his Tivo to watch the rest of it is saying that he enjoyed the show enough to record it all, not that he was going to skip the commercials. Gawd, you sound like an AOL exec, expecting him to "steal" the programming.

      By Tivo'ing the show, our dear author will be assured of not missing ANY episodes, because, like me, he probably has no time to slot for several hours worth of programming when Sci-fi chooses to air it.

      And, like as not, our dear author is going to watch some of those commercials, because, since Tivo has no 30 second skip function, he will have to see some of them, even in fast forward, and will stop to watch commercials he is interested in. I do it all the time.

      Now tack on the fact that the Tivo can track which commercials he is watching and narrowing down the demographic that our dear advertisers need to target, saving them money for not showing commercials to people that don't care about their products, and allowing Sci-Fi to charge more for their time because they can show exactly who is watching what. (assuming they all don't have their heads up their arses, the different companies ought to be doing this...)

      So, no, Sci-Fi does not NEED to lose money on Tivo customers, and you are an unenlighted media conglomerate tool.

    • Re:i can't believe it (Score:5, Funny)

      by Java Pimp ( 98454 ) on Tuesday December 03, 2002 @01:47PM (#4802869) Homepage
      I'm not gonna steal programming...

      I'll set up my VCR timer to tape it. And I already broke the Fwd button off my remote! And set a timer lock on my refrigerator so I can't make a sandwich during commercial breaks. I know every time I watch a commercial $0.07 is automatically drafted from my wallet and given to sci-fi cause I know the advertizers didn't already pay them for the air time. I don't want to see sci-fi lose any money now.

      I wonder... since skipping commercials is stealing, is it also stealing to watch the commercials with no intention of buying the product? I mean really, for the advertizers to get my money, I've got to buy the product, right?

    • Unless he is in a neilson family, no one can tell if he watches the commercials or not...
    • So what you're saying is that if I set up my Tivo to record a show and then I watch it once and the commercials 47,000 times that the show will suddenly become profitable and they'll split it off? ;-)
  • for those of us unable to grab the premiere, but interested in possibly watching going forward. thanks

  • 20 hours??? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Necron69 ( 35644 )
    No way in Hell do I have 20 hours to watch a "mini" series. Unless Sci-Fi reruns this in some all-day marathon session, while my wife and kids are out of town, this one will pass me by.

    WTF were they thinking?

    - Necron69
    • I take it you're not a fan of that Keifer Sutherland show "24".

      J
      • Not the same at all. 24 comes on once a week, a much smaller commitment than asking people to watch every single f*#&ing day for two weeks, two hours every night.

        Back in the 80's, the miniseries Roots and Shogun did manage to get people to ditch their lives for a little while, but they offered something new and different and informative. Taken is just a rehash of flying saucer mythos we've already heard endlessly.

        I was however amused; instead of the usual (ahem) probing, judging by all the nosebleeds, they were getting nasal-probed instead. :-)

  • Spaced out? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Gaggme ( 594298 ) on Tuesday December 03, 2002 @01:30PM (#4802693) Homepage Journal
    The whole series is a total of 10 - 2 hour events. Now with all respects, how much more space would someone need.

    The series revolves around three families spaced out over 50 years of history. From strange lights over Nazi Germany, to modern day. As far as the first airing, it appears as though each family will receive 3 - 2 hours episodes, then a 2 hour finalie where everyone is brought together.

    Myself, I was rather appauled by the use of Steven Speilberg so prominently. Each of these episodes was directed by a different director, then Speilberg looked it over and tried to alter it ever so slightly IN THE POST PRODUCTION!. By tagging on a big league name, the further drew people in. That mixed with constant TV commercial marketing.

    • Re:Spaced out? (Score:3, Informative)

      by mblase ( 200735 )
      Myself, I was rather appauled by the use of Steven Speilberg so prominently. Each of these episodes was directed by a different director, then Speilberg looked it over and tried to alter it ever so slightly IN THE POST PRODUCTION!

      As I understand it, the miniseries was basically Spielberg's brainchild. Even if he wasn't responsible for the actual directing, it still came from his head. Credit is due.

      • Re:Spaced out? (Score:2, Informative)

        by PianoComp81 ( 589011 )
        As I understand it, the miniseries was basically Spielberg's brainchild. Even if he wasn't responsible for the actual directing, it still came from his head. Credit is due.

        It was a combination of Leslie Bohem (the writer of each episode) and Spielberg. CNN [cnn.com] has a good article on where it came from.

    • Re:Spaced out? (Score:3, Informative)

      by joshsisk ( 161347 )
      I think he means we wishes that there was more space between episodes. As in, once a week for ten weeks as opposed to every day for ten days.
    • "appalled"
    • If you looked at the commercials, it always said "Steven Speilberg presents." If you know how to read thst, you know it could mean as little as having him stand up at the beginning of the show and say "And now, here's Taken...".

      Yes, they are capitalizing on his name, but you need to bring your intelligence to bear as well.

    • Re:Spaced out? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by DaytonCIM ( 100144 )
      then Speilberg looked it over and tried to alter it ever so slightly IN THE POST PRODUCTION!

      And thank god he did. When I first heard about this mini-series I was afraid that it would be another "Dinotopia" fiasco. I am so relieved that 1) Speilberg is obviously in control and 2) one of the 3 primary netowrks is not showing it.

      Something that most /.'ers may not be aware of is that for three months before Taken aired, SciFi mailed thousands of brochures and pamphlets to high schools. My wife is a teacher, so of course we ordered everything offered. They sent us lesson plans, videos, handouts, etc... An unbelievable amount of information for free... and none of it had one bit of commercialism attached (other than a couple of SciFi channel promotions). Pretty dame good stuff I must say.

      Lastly, one of the brochures stated that if your students did not have access to the SciFi channel, they would send copies of the mini-series to show in class (of course it is not the entire 20 hour series, but an abridged version) for free.

      Tom Hanks did the same thing (not quite as much material) with From The Earth to The Moon.
  • Anyone know how long it will be before the DVDs are available? Amazon.com has no info, other than a DVD will exist sometime.
  • I must be a freak since I use the internet more than I watch TV. Well, I actually don't watch TV at all. Public broadcasts are only re-runs and I don't want to pay for cable (I pay for broadband instead). So for me the only way to see a series is either if it is released in DVD format (that I can rent/buy and watch a piacere)) or, as some series in Asia, in stream format over the Internet.

    It wouldn't cost them much to put the content online, at a smaller quality, and charging a minium fee (like $1 per hour) for viewing. But we can't ask these kind of things as long as they are busy putting online services that have more DRM than music variety. :-(



  • Did Taco say he saw this
    last night or was it last night?

  • I think.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by stratjakt ( 596332 ) on Tuesday December 03, 2002 @01:34PM (#4802736) Journal
    ...that the character dynamics and dialogue seemed cliche. I wouldn't expect a ton of originality from Spielberg, his claim to fame is the lowest common denominator, but this was so slow and predictable, it was a feat to even pay attention.

    The casting was adequate, but not spectacular. The special effects were on par with any other TV miniseries. I perhaps just expected more from Spielberg, perhaps he could have thrown some more cash into some eye candy to keep me interested.

    The plot itself was reminiscent of an archetypal heaven-hell scenario. Nothing new, but a tried and true storyline if told correctly.

    All in all I'd give this maybe 4 stars out of 10, but I'll reserve final judgement until after the miniseries is complete.
    • I wouldn't expect a ton of originality from Spielberg, his claim to fame is the lowest common denominator

      Actually, I'm pretty sure his "claim to fame" is making Schindler's List, which is widely and rightfully regarded as one of the best motion pictures of the 20th century.

      • Re:I think.. (Score:2, Insightful)

        by stratjakt ( 596332 )
        >> Actually, I'm pretty sure his "claim to fame" is making Schindler's List, which is widely and rightfully regarded as one of the best motion pictures of the 20th century.

        No, I'm pretty sure it's ET, Gremlins, Jurrasic Park and Raiders of the Lost Ark.

        Frankly, anyone could have made Schindlers List. Making Nazi's look bad is like shooting fish in a barrel.

    • Re:I think.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tswinzig ( 210999 ) on Tuesday December 03, 2002 @02:09PM (#4803089) Journal
      I wouldn't expect a ton of originality from Spielberg, his claim to fame is the lowest common denominator

      If you mean "regular people," you're right, he makes movies lots of regular people like to watch. However, he has done his share of weighty matter...

      Schindler's List
      Saving Private Ryan
      Amistad
      The Color Purple
      Band of Brothers
      AI (even though I didn't like it)
      Empire of the Sun
      E.T. (both weighty AND appeals to the masses)
      Close Encounters of the Third Kind

      "Lowest common denominator," indeed.

  • The aliens are too mystical/magical for me (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hirschma ( 187820 ) on Tuesday December 03, 2002 @01:35PM (#4802739)
    Lessee... they can take any shape. They can convert to energy and just vanish. They are telpathic. They can learn English really, really fast. I mean, what's next? Flying bicycles?

    Sure, I guess that these things could be part of the same super technology that allows them to get here in the first place, but I'd think its a lot easier to move faster than light than to establish communications with a totally alien species, much less assume their biology and all that jazz.

    Bottom line - too much fantasy is being injected into this science fiction.
  • Oh great, I guess that means I have to find another date to the prom.
  • Well, I guess it was just a pipedream.
    Next on the list-George Lucas!

  • Since "abductions" are really ... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by burgburgburg ( 574866 ) <splisken06NO@SPAMemail.com> on Tuesday December 03, 2002 @01:38PM (#4802784)
    hypnagogic sleep paralysis (HSP), a fairly well documented phenomenon [nightterrors.org], I just can't get into this series.

    And I have yet to hear a remotely reasonable explanation as to why an alien species would expend the enormous amounts of energy it would take to get to the one of the obscure spokes of the galaxy (way away from the interesting concentrated center) and spend even two seconds watching us. Denibian slime worms would more interesting.

    • And I have yet to hear a remotely reasonable explanation as to why an alien species would expend the enormous amounts of energy it would take to get to the one of the obscure spokes of the galaxy (way away from the interesting concentrated center) and spend even two seconds watching us. Denibian slime worms would more interesting.

      And I have yet to hear a remotely reasonable explanation as to why Charles Darwin would expend the enormous amounts of capital it would take to get to remote islands. Or Marco Polo, or Columbus, for that matter.

      That you can't think of a good reason doesn't mean that there's no good reason.

      • The Beagle sailed up to the Galapagos Islands. The men, including Darwin, got into boats, rowed over and explored the islands (and got water and food, etc).

        They didn't skulk about. They didn't dress up like swimming iguanas or giant tortises.

        They explored, and observed (and for Marco and Chris, traded). None of them hid, themselves of their purposes.

    • No. There's a theory that abductions are hypnagogic sleep paralysis but to say it as an undeniable fact it just bad science tied to arrogance.
      • There's a theory that abductions are hypnagogic sleep paralysis but to say it as an undeniable fact it just bad science tied to arrogance.

        All right: by combining Occam's Razor with the fact that evidence of alien abductions are anecdotal at best, while HSP is well-researched and documented, we can say with a reasonable degree of certainty that most or all reports of alien abductions, aren't.

        Satisfied?
        • Close.

          How about: by using Occam's Razor with the fact HSP is well-researched and documented, we can say with a reasonable degree of certainty that some reports of alien abductions are actually HSP.

          Unless, of course, you've got a provable test methodology that is repeatable and something measurable to document the "anectdotal at best" statement.
    • Do you have any idea how many aliens are employed by Galactic Anal Probing Inc.? If they didn't abduct us and anal probe us their economy would colapse!
    • Denibian slime worms would more interesting.

      Considering how much time our university employees spend researching every last minutae of terrestrial life, archaeology, biology, chemistry, etc. etc., I can accept this as plausible.

      Why should we assume the entire alien species is interested in us? These are probably just some interplanetary grad students out to get their Ph.D. completed as quickly as possible so they can get on with their careers.
  • You know, I should really go to sleep. I saw the title and thought, "Speilberg's getting married?" ...

    And earlier this morning, watching the rerun of Tech TV's Screen Savers I was cought off guard by there "Bitch chat" with George Clooney.
    It was moments later I realized the height difference in Bit and Chat...

  • Probing (Score:2, Funny)

    by Ann Coulter ( 614889 )
    Alien abduction stories are so bland that the only way that they can possibly excite me is if they actually showed an uncensored anal probing. I seriously think that alien abductions are at around the same stylistic level as any mediocre porn film and therefore they should be made into real porn so that they can actualize the full potential of these contrived mythos. It's sad how much the quality of a culture's mythology says about the culture.
    • I watched the behind the scenes for Taken that SciFi ran and it looks like there is going to be some zero-g love making going on, with some possibly very blurry nudity... sounds like maybe your prediction will come true.

  • Boring! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by coinreturn ( 617535 )
    Too many characters doing almost nothing. Notice that most characters weren't even named! They were just "that redhead" showing up and doing boring everyday stuff. No distinct characters (were there any blacks, asians, etc in the forties? - btw I am a white male), so you could barely tell people apart. Okay, so the aliens are kind of cool. They only showed about seven seconds of aliens in the first hour of boring crap, so I turned it off. I was VASTLY disappointed. So you want to make a miniseries - if you don't have DRAMA no is going to watch 20 hours!
  • 10 - Commercials
    9 - I'm never going to finish reading Cryptonomicon
    8 - I'll miss night 9 due to being on a bus
    7 - I'll miss night 10 due to being on the mountain drying out my clothes from a day of snowboarding
    6 - It might be good
    5 - I might like it
    4 - I wouldn't be able to deal with the loss
    3 - I don't own a Tivo
    2 - If I buy a Tivo I won't have enough room in my entertainment center
    1 - Tivo is just a slow overpriced computer.

    Does this series only seem to me or is it a way of getting more geeks (people that believe in Alien stuff) to buy Tivos this Christmas?
    • 3 - I don't own a Tivo
      2 - If I buy a Tivo I won't have enough room in my entertainment center
      1 - Tivo is just a slow overpriced computer.
      Uh, if you can, find the manual to your VCR, it will show you how to make the flashing "12:00" go away, and explain how you can program it to (now follow closely here...) record TV shows when you're not even there!

  • Spielberg trademark (Score:3, Funny)

    by Shamashmuddamiq ( 588220 ) on Tuesday December 03, 2002 @01:50PM (#4802921)

    After seeing the commercials, I just couldn't bring myself to watch it. Is it just me, or is it true that "the little kid who knows everything" cliche is SO FREAKING OVERUSED by Spielberg (and other) films that it's almost embarrasing to watch??

    Once a week, when I see a commercial for a new movie or show where "the little kid knows everything," I can't change the channel fast enough. And I don't tire of these kinds of things easily.

  • My take on Taken (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Carnivore24 ( 467239 )
    I watched both the 9-11 and 11-1am showing and I thought it was pretty interesting. I have always been intrigued and felt a sense of strangeness while watching it. Especially scenes like the plane going down and the lights engulfing it.

    One scene that stood out was when the woman was walking through the ship wreckage and discovers the alien metal. I was waiting for something to either jump out and attack her or she was going to discover a body. Instead we see her walk off and the camera zooms in on the tree revealing an alien. That was eerie.

    The rest of the episode was brief flashbacks and intricate character developement. I also noticed they tried to keep with the Area 51 crash and weather balloon coverup, these were blended into the story quite well. Dont forget the bits with the alien drivebys and cars/electrical equipment shutting off.

    I will be tuning in the check out more....

  • No Farscape, No Sci-Fi Channel (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TTMuskrat ( 629320 ) on Tuesday December 03, 2002 @01:52PM (#4802936)
    I have been boycotting the Sci-Fi channel since they dumped Farscape. If Taken gets good reviews, I will just get it on DVD when it comes out.
    • I second that motion. I used to be excited about Taken but after the Farscape fiasco, I decided no more Sci-Fi channel for me. In fact, I moved shortly after Farscape when on hiatus so I didn't even bother blowing the $50/mo on cable after that. Sure, I may only get 3 channels with my crappy antenna but I get Enterprise and Simpsons... not much else on that I care to watch :)
    • Same here.

      As I wrote to the head of SciFi Channel:

      Before dumping I-Man: View on actual TV, when showing: 5Hr on Friday, plus secondary runs tape and other channels.

      When they dumped I-Man: View on actual TV: 2Hrs Farscape only.

      When they add StarGate: 2 to 4 hours. StarGate was a so so view add.

      When they dropped FarScape: 0 hours.

      Now it is food channel: Iron Chef! - maybe they move Good Eats to Friday too!

      My house hold will *NOT* be watching the finally of FarScape... This season sucked anyway.

      But note: They sure wasted alot of $$$ on ADs on other channels for "TOOKEN". Now we know where the FarScape budget went.
    • There was precious little on cable my wife and I wanted to watch, and Farscape was the last straw. Now a peice speaker wire brings us Buffy over some kind of invisible "airwaves."

      Screw me Sci Fi? No...screw you, and the AT&T you rode in on.

      Now it's $20 a month for Net Flix, and I still save $30 over the cost of cable.
  • Missed it, maybe it's finally time for a tivo. But the last mini series rocked!

  • Ohhh sure .. (Score:5, Funny)

    by SuperDuG ( 134989 ) <be@@@eclec...tk> on Tuesday December 03, 2002 @01:56PM (#4802977) Homepage Journal
    You all mod the "Steven King Dead at 55" posts to -1, but you publish "Spielberg's Taken" on the front page???

    wait ... taken was the name of a show ...

  • The Death of SCIFI (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 03, 2002 @02:05PM (#4803055)
    I can't help feeling that I was watching a weird mélange of Spielberg's visual sensibilities all in one film.

    I also am seeing, what appears to me, to be the beginning of the end for the Sci-Fi channel.

    The first clue was canning Farscape. While it may not have been a ratings powerhouse, it was arguably one of the most creative shows on television - and elevated the SciFI genre far beyond it's peers. The show was perceived as the fledgling channel's flagship show and, when combined with it's on-air identity, really got folks pumped-up about the SCIFI brand. I wish more conglomerates understood the power of a franchise beyond it's initial ratings.

    The second clue is the channels reaction to John Edwards and it's new-show-to-be "The Dream Team with Annabelle and Michael". These are shows that are cheap to produce, attract a strong female audience - if not skew heavy female - and get ratings. Despite the fact that these shows are only marginally related to "science fiction/fantasy" etc. and are better suited aired on it's USA sister channel - belies the fact that they are polluting what made the Sci-Fi channel so strong to begin with and what gives these shows such strong lead-ins.

    The third clue is the new on-air ID and identity spots currently running. I speak from experience here, as I am a broadcast designer who has done some high profile work as well as sit-in on the meetings where the politics of changing something as momentous as a logo are in full-play. First let me say this: The new logo is clunky and horrible and the new spots that I have seen are mostly insipid and mushy. Everyone I know in the Broadcast Design/ID business has for years been in agreement with me when I say "SciFi has the best, most innovative broadcast design on the planet. No contest". The work now looks like it was designed by a committee and not a visionary. What's particularly telling is the new logo. Why on earth change the logo? The old logo is far superior to the ham-fisted hack-job logo they now use. The only thing I can think of, and if anyone has any information on this I'd love to hear it, is that "new management" came in and wanted to put their stamp on everything. The whole "If it ain't broke - I'm gonna fix it anyway 'cause im the new person!" seems pretty strong here.

    In conclusion, SCIFI is trading Farscape for John Edwards and in the process losing its soul. Instead of watching a particular show, I would watch "SCIFI" - I don't do that anymore, I pick and choose from a rapidly shrinking pool of shows I want to see. And the shows that do remain could be as easily shown on many other, less distinct, channels. I'm sure "The Dream Team" would do just as well on VH1. So sad to see you go SCIFI, it was fun while it lasted.
    • I mean really. "Field of dreams" is sci fi? "Cape Fear"? "The flintstones"? Give me a fucking break.
    • "In conclusion, SCIFI is trading Farscape for John Edwards and in the process losing its soul. Instead of watching a particular show, I would watch "SCIFI" - I don't do that anymore, I pick and choose from a rapidly shrinking pool of shows I want to see. And the shows that do remain could be as easily shown on many other, less distinct, channels. I'm sure "The Dream Team" would do just as well on VH1. So sad to see you go SCIFI, it was fun while it lasted."

      Of course it is, this is the nature of all cabel channels. They do really well in the beginning but then they just skew to their audience to get better ratings and settle into a funk of turning out crap.

      Every year a cable channel is remaking itself into one thing, something that can make money. Several years ago it was The Learning Channel which no longer teaches anyone anything but is mostly melodrama about emergency rooms, police chases, and weird medical sob stories. Recently they got back to their roots by actually putting something on during prime time that educates about science or history, but I have the history channel now so pffffffft (God how I long for Connections:2).

      Last year it was "The new TNN!" and their revamp around Star Trek:TNG, Baywatch, and Wrestling, from a country and western style station (If you weren't enough of a redneck to know before, it used to be the Nashville Network, now its The National Network).

      This year its the Sci-Fi channel, and I'm surprised it didn't come before. What most /.ers consider real Sci Fi doesn't sell to the masses unless its action-packed. Actioned-Packed Sci fi is expensive... too expensive for TV.

      John Edwards is cheap, and he pulls in ratings.

      I don't see this as a death, just the natural order of that evil thing called cable.

      If I want sci-fi, I'll tape Adult swim on Saturday night on Cartoon Network (mmmmmmmmm Cowboy Bebop *incessant drooling*)
  • I mean, who can commit 2 hours every day for 10 days to watch the show (besides the slashdot crowd, I mean).
  • My wife and I (both sci-fi fans as well as SF fans, for those keen enough to know the difference) tuned in to watch Taken last night, somewhat put out that it preempted our usual Monday night four-hour Stargate fix, but hopeful nonetheless.

    Well, my wife was Taken by the sandman about halfway through, and I was Taken by a game of Rolling Thunder on my laptop. What a SNOOZEFEST! After about an hour, I found myself scrolling through the onscreen guide to see what I was missing.

    I finished watching it out of the hope for some twist to keep me hanging on for the next episode... no luck. I think I'll pass on this series.

  • Compare the best prices on: Consumer Electronics (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Anyone else notice that in the related links: bar? advertising slowly engulfs slashdot...

  • T*KEN (Score:3, Insightful)

    by poot_rootbeer ( 188613 ) on Tuesday December 03, 2002 @02:38PM (#4803390)
    1. I hate the logo. The 'A' in taken consists of a human figure with arms and legs out ascending through the sky, illuminated by a burst of backlighting. The lighting is more prominent than the figure, so it looks like the title reads 'TOKEN'.

    2. I liked this series better the first time... when it was called "Amazing Stories".

    (oh yeah, and 3. ???, 4. Profit.)

  • Glad it was on, ... (Score:4, Funny)

    by r_j_prahad ( 309298 ) <r_j_prahad AT hotmail DOT com> on Tuesday December 03, 2002 @02:43PM (#4803450)
    ... it cured my insomnia.

  • Well I watched it last night and I can say it lived up to it's name sake. Someone got took and it wasn't by they aliens.

  • If Spielberg's Taken, can I have Kubrick?

    heh, sorry, couldn't resist...

  • A few people submitted asking for an open discussion for Spielberg's Taken miniseries that premiered last night on SciFi last night.

    Today Slashdot destroyed my ability to speak properly today.

Slashdot Top Deals

To the systems programmer, users and applications serve only to provide a test load.

Close