Premature Rumors about Stargate Season 7? 231
An anonymous reader writes "While some were excited about the news of Stargate's renewal, others remained cautiously skeptical. Those is who did might be interested in reading this story posted on Zap2it." I for one hope the show keeps going. With the loss of Farscape, SG1 is possibly the best straight up sci-fi on TV- and the last show on the SciFi channel I watch.
Stargate (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Stargate (Score:3, Interesting)
Daniele Jackson? (Score:4, Funny)
Daniele Jackson? Have you been watching SG-1 in a parallel universe where all the cast members are of the opposite gender?
Re:Daniele Jackson? (Score:2)
Re:Stargate (Score:2)
Robots (Score:5, Funny)
Are there any robots in Stargate? SciFi is only good when there's robots.
Re:Robots (Score:2)
I shit you not.
Re:Robots (Score:5, Funny)
[Nerd alert]
Episode 18, Season 1, Tin Man. [sg1archive.com]
Original Air Date: February 13, 1998
O'Neill and the SG-1 team arrive on P3X-989, only to be zapped by an electrical trap that renders them unconscious. When they awake, they find themselves in an underground lab with Harlan, a strange but apparently peaceful native of P3X-989 who claims to be 11,000 years old. Harlan, the planet's last survivor, who has lived for 11,000 years in a synthetic (that is, "robot") body, has also created robot duplicates of SG-1. Hilarity ensues.
"Ladies and gentlemen, this is your colonel speaking. Welcome to P3X-niner-eight-niner where it's a balmy... room temperature." - Col. Jack O'Neill
How embarrassing for me.
Re:Robots (Score:2)
robots...
There is a race of insect robots that where built as toys for a Special android chick. When the creators decided to turn her off, the little robots tried to protect her, killing the entire planet.
And of course the little Grey dudes (Thor and company) are fighting the little robots that took over the entire galaxy.
Nice subplot, why are there hardly any alien vistors? They are off fighting wars.
Re:Robots (Score:2)
Re:Robots (Score:2)
anyone else starting to get disappointed in scifi? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:anyone else starting to get disappointed in sci (Score:3, Informative)
Five words: Crossing Over with John Edward (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Five words: Crossing Over with John Edward (Score:2)
Re:Five words: Crossing Over with John Edward (Score:2)
John Edwards: the man who put the "iffy" in SciFi.
Re:anyone else starting to get disappointed in sci (Score:4, Insightful)
not just scfi (Score:5, Insightful)
Well it seems that every channel is doing that these days:
Crossfire (Score:2)
Looking Forward to Next Dune Miniseries (Score:3, Interesting)
Lexx is their number two show? (Score:2)
The premise appears to be a cranky old man, porno-quality woman, and an invincible man with enormous hair living in a spaceship/insect.
The episode consisted of a number of hostile, floating arms attempting to eat said spacecraft.
I can't decide whether I love it or I hate it.
Maybe they could change it too..... (Score:1, Troll)
Don't consider this a flame... I'm definitely open to suggestions as to why this show is worth the time to watch...
Re:Maybe they could change it too..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Aside from purely subjective impressions, consider this... SG-1 consistently maintains full continuity with every previous episode, so that the entire series is, in a sense, one giant story. Although it's not as carefully pre-plotted as Babylon 5, that feature makes things a lot more interesting... it's much more difficult to recycle an old plot. On the other hand, that may render the show more difficult for a newcomer to understand (you could always buy the 1st and 2nd season DVDs...).
The writers are also very, very good about keeping the science real and the technobabble to a minimum, while still keeping things entertaining. I've seen them carefully avoid just about every silly movie and TV cliche you can think of (OK, they still make things go whoosh in the vacuum of space... the only people who get that right are the guys who produce Firefly).
Re:Maybe they could change it too..... (Score:2)
Excelled in hokey plot and poor dialog?
Andromeda (Score:2)
How about a movie? (Score:3, Insightful)
Mr Anderson (Score:5, Informative)
Apparently, it is in part due to Richard Dean Anderson... he is relocating to LA to be back with his family (a bit like Anthony Head (Giles in Buffy) returning to England for over a year. But he might rough it and do a hotel stint for the 7th season (if it does go ahead).
A great Stargate site to go to is Gateworld [gateworld.net], not only for nes and tidbits, but is great for episode info... etc.
I sincerely hope that Stargate does get renewed for a seventh season, and that the possible post series feature film (that might deal with finishing off the Goa'uld) as well as Stargate: Atlantis, we are certainly getting a great amount of Science Fiction viewing.
The Enterprise production team seriously ought to look at Farscape and SG1, because they are way superior to what recycled crap they are coming out with... the only good new thing going for Trek is the soon to be released Nemesis.
Re:Mr Anderson (Score:2)
The Perfect World: Every ethical issue is black or white; every setting is pristine or at least clearly defined; every plotline ties up all its loose ends (or at least tries to); endings are typically "happy" (or at least positive); storylines are typically event-driven (that is, plot dictates how the characters behave). Star Trek is a prime example of this type.
The Imperfect World: ethics come in shades of grey, orange, green, paisley, striped, and plaid; the setting is to various degrees lived-in or even downright worn; plotlines frequently leave loose ends wherever they may lie, to be picked up again whenever they happen to trip someone; endings can be ugly or frustrating for all involved; storylines are typically character-driven (that is, events derive from how people behave, not the reverse). Stargate is a prime example of this type.
Personally, I've reached the point where I find the Perfect World type of SF all but unwatchable and unreadable. And Stargate is presently the only show I set time aside to watch.
I hope it goes off the air (Score:4, Interesting)
What's left to watch on Scifi? (Score:2, Interesting)
Crossing Over? (Score:5, Funny)
They should change their name to the fi channel
Re:What's left to watch on Scifi? (Score:2)
Without any new farscape episodes after the wrap up of this season, and if there were no more episodes of stargate sg1 after this series, would there really be anything worth watching anymore on scifi? (besides of course the good episodes of both when they are in reruns, but even that gets boring after repeated viewing)
No. In fact, I wouldn't include SG-1 in that list, which is at best a guilty pleasure. I'm just going to buy the Farscape DVDs and stop watching SciFi altogether.
Stargate SG-1 has been good, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
They have had a few stories this season that have been a bit more fast and loose than the equivalents were on Showtime. Admittedly, the USAF has been working on alien tech for a while now, and they have been very good about making it obvious that while we can replicate and understand how to make some of the technology, once they moved over to the Scifi channel, tech starts popping out all the place. The fighter with the hyper drive, the warship (which cost a bit too little for it being made of such rare materials under such secrecy and with such one-off parts...and in a ridiculous shape for the task at hand too...sheesh), and so on.
Well, a good way of putting it is that there has been a lot of ideas thrown around without thought of what the consequences might be unlike before.
Don't get me wrong, it's still orders of magnitude better than Trek, but...the flavour change isn't quite as tasty as before. Think New Coke.
Re:Stargate SG-1 has been good, but... (Score:3, Informative)
As for the "rare mineral," haven't you noticed that about every third episode involved trade negotiations, especially for Naquadaa? Some of these planets may have been "mined out" for the amounts required by the Go'uld, yet still worth operating for the quantity earth needs at this time.
Ugly, ack! (Score:2)
It would be like parking an old trashed Corvair in a Ferrari neighborhood. Did you see the shot with Thor's ship and that thing together? Ugh!
Re:Stargate SG-1 has been good, but... (Score:2)
Even if it does not get picked up next season (Score:2, Insightful)
In the case of Earth 2, they just pre-empted too many shows due to football on Sunday nights and kept moving around the timeslot. I was an avid viewer and couldn't find the show half the time. No wonder the ratings weren't what they wanted. As far as SG-1 goes, I kept Showtime for two years just for that show... and dropped it as soon as it moved over to sci-fi.
Re:Even if it does not get picked up next season (Score:2)
But it seems that Sci-Fi picks up shows just to kill them. Sliders and MST3K come to mind.
Re:Even if it does not get picked up next season (Score:2)
Kindof like what Fox did to Dark Angel. Also I only subscribed to Showtime for Stargate...I mean, I *tried* to find other stuff on Showtime worth watching...but there wasn't any
Re:Even if it does not get picked up next season (Score:2)
Jeremiah is worth keeping SHO for (Score:2, Interesting)
That's too bad, because you've missed out on what is looking to be the best new sci-fi show of the year; Jeremiah.
Some of the episodes have been fairly cheezy, but the "plot" episodes have been excellent. It is reminding me alot of Bablyon 5 - slow beginning with some weak episodes. In fact, Straczynski (of Bab5) is doing this series, too, and I think it's going to turn out to be one heck of a show.
--The Rizz
"Comedians and politicians each tell the audience what it wants to hear. The difference is that the audience laughs at the comedian and the politician laughs at the audience." --Alexis A. Gilliland
some others (Score:2)
Brimstone - rocked
Dark Skies - eh, it was watchable
I have problems watching SG1 (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I have problems watching SG1 (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I have problems watching SG1 (Score:2)
I'm still missing Lexx (Score:2, Funny)
Oh God, I hope I didn't miss the full frontal nudity.
Anyone know which episode it was in if I did miss it?
Re:I'm still missing Lexx (Score:2)
Re:I'm still missing Lexx (Score:2)
I don't know about that. I've got the upcut episodes on DVD and I've certainly seen something Zev's mother wouldn't like me looking at.
Re:I'm still missing Lexx (Score:2)
I liked lexx series 1+2 (some of series 2 was seriously strange!). Series 3 was in danger of becoming what it was trying to parody - staying on the same planet was a mistake IMHO. Haven't seen series 4 yet.
The biggest problem with Lexx over here is they show it at 4am or something so it gets almost no viewers. Tivos aren't that common (actually, most people don't even know what they are, since you can't actually buy them in shops any more).
It's also a very individual taste... the humour is unique, being originally german. It's not surprising US types don't always get it (don't worry, most of us europeans don't get your style of humour either - is frazier actually supposed to be funny?).
OTOH I've never been able to sit through an episode of Farscape without switching off in boredom (Tried series 1 - muppet show.. Tried a later one (series 3?) - still muppet show. In fact my wife started singing the muppets theme tune about halfway through...)
Check out Starhunter (Score:5, Informative)
One of the cool things i noticed in the last ep is that they take relativity into account - the bounty hunter captain talking to his supplier mentioned that what was 3 weeks to them on the ship was 4 years to the folks back home.
Re:Check out Starhunter (Score:2)
Re: Check out Starhunter (Score:2)
Premature Rumors about Stargate Season 7... (Score:3, Funny)
Aw, sorry, I just couldn't resist it. Personally, I've not really watched it much recently (on plain UK tv that is), but I did like it (and the film of course) when I watched it in the past. Wonder which series it is they're showing over here, I expect we should get a fair few more before the end.
Re:Premature Rumors about Stargate Season 7... (Score:2)
They have jumped the shark, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Current Information about Farscape (Score:5, Informative)
Essentially the current working theory on why Farscape was canceled boils down to this. In Part, Michael Jackson (not the singer obviously) and the head of USA Networks don't like Space shows. The other part, Stargate SG1 only costs around $500,000 per episode to make, where-as Farscape costs around $1,200,000 to make (yes, 1.2 million) per episode. This is why they moved Farscape to 10pm on Friday nights from their original 9pm slot, and put Farscape into the 9pm slot. They ended up losing a good part of their younger audience due to bedtimes. Why? They wanted to get the Farscape fanbase interested in Stargate while intentionally dropping ratings for Farscape. This way they could issue a statement that they are cancelling Farscape due to a slip in ratings, and actually keep the overall ratings with Stargate, all while saving $700,000.
From a business standpoint sure it looks good. But people watch the network, not robots. They get upset and angry when favorite shows of theirs are canceled, especially when there was an announcement they were picking up season 5 and it was in a contract, little be knowns to the public there was a huge out loophole in the contract. So anyhow, if you are a fan of Farscape, head over to those links and see what you can do.
Re:Current Information about Farscape (Score:2, Interesting)
Sci-Fi owns SG1 and can offset the show's cost with merchandising and endless reruns, plus they already have the audience SG1 established on Showtime and in syndication.
I do agree that SciFi engineered the circumstances needed to cancel Farscape. The 10 PM timeslot, delaying season 3's final four until April, and underpromoting the show in general gave Sci-Fi the perfect excuse to cancel the show; though, they hadn't planned on people finding out while there was still a chance to save it (a press release from the previous week even mentioned Farsape as a contributing factor to the network's ratings increase). Sci-Fi's assumption that science fiction fans are undiscriminating idiots who will watch whatever gets thrown at them didn't help matters either.
The network execs don't understand their audience or the genre.
What? (Score:2, Insightful)
What the frell are you smoking?
What about Starhunter? (Score:2)
The setting is not too distant. Mankind has moved from just the Earth, colonizing asteroids, moons and other planets in the system. Along with this spread, mankind is discovering that there are a few genes on the human genome that are of, well, alien origin.
Things get interesting. The ship's captain, Dante Montana, is searching for his child, abducted years ago by raiders. His neice, Percy, is the engineer, such as it is, on the ship. Luc is the other human crew member, and the computer rounds off the complement.
I've seen three and a half episodes thus far, and it looks rather good. Check them out [starhuntertv.com], but beware, the listed "start time" is usually wrong (here in Seattle, it starts at 11:05 Saturday night).
Just have to say it: FIREFLY RULES! (Score:2)
I know this reads like a troll, and I'm shocked I feel this way, because I really loved so many Sci-Fi shows in my life. Still, I think Firefly just has the best writers, hands down. I guess it's not the show for people who like plots about time travel, holograms and other mishandled philosophical issues. Firefly is more like the chronicles of a D&D adventure group. Whatever. It really kicks ass. ... Well, that's enough of my gushing; I'm glad I got that off my chest.
Who the f*** cares? (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure you might watch it once in a while but you would never admit it. What's wrong with you guys?
b.
"SG1 is possibly the best" (Score:2)
Ahh!
Ah ha ha ha!
Oh....
Mercy!
Wait a minute, it's called... (Score:4, Insightful)
the SciFi Channel? I thought it was the Stargate Channel as that is the only show on that channel. Open up the TV guide and all I see is SG-1, SG-1, SG-1, etc, etc, ad nauseum. Kinda like the misnamed History Channel. It is actually the WWII Channel as that is the only stuff they show.
I have been steadily widdling down the number of channels I actually watch since getting my satellite dish. Hundreds of channels but nothing of note to watch. I USED to watch the SG-1 Channel when it had B5 and Farscape running. Now, it's just crap (X-Files reruns don't cut it...I've seen 'em all already several times over).
It is almost to the point that it makes just as much sense to ditch the satellite and go back to my aerial with its 3 or 4 available channels. It has about as much variety as the Satellite at no cost. SciFi Channel indeed! My @ss!
History Channel (Score:2)
The History Channel." - Homer Simpson
Odyssey 5 (Score:2, Interesting)
Wot 7th season? (Score:2)
I wonder why this crops up again and again. Brad Wright has previously said that he quite expected season 6 to be the last season, it was building towards something which would be continued in a SG1 movie. Then if there was interest he has an idea for a spin of series, based on a seed he claims to have planted back in season 1.
All I have to say is... (Score:2)
.
Amanda Tapping, do you have any sisters?
.
.
Stargate is _good_! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Stargate is _good_! (Score:2)
What makes *good* SF is understanding how dramatic TV works, then applying that to a SF setting/plot. Shoehorning science into poor drama with cardboard characters is why so much media SF sucks.
Re:Stargate is _good_! (Score:2)
Agreed, but... in order to consider a story SF the setting and plot have to include some measure of speculation and extrapolation from current trends, *and* the trappings of the story have to be internally consistent and stay within the bounds of known or easily extrapolated reality. By that measure a lot of what passes for SF really isn't; a lot of Star Trek episodes would work just as well as westerns, soap operas or sitcoms. Most of SG-1's plots are driven by the exploration of new worlds, or the results of events that occurred in the framework of its original premise (that many ancient religions and beliefs were spawned by extraterrestrials). Without these speculative elements, most of SG-1's plots wouldn't work.
And, in my opinion, they do understand how do do dramatic TV. Of course they've had their share of dogs. Half of anything has gotta be below average, right?
Re:Stargate is _good_! (Score:2)
From the dozen or so eps I've seen, SG-1 has been very consistent with its characters and has done a nice job of defining and staying within its own reality. It has *continuity*.
And yes, they do indeed understand dramatic TV -- and that's the biggest reason why it works. I recognise some of the production crew's names as having previously worked on shows that held together well regardless of premise or genre (couldn't tell you which shows, since my memory for such things tends to be for "groups" rather than specifics).
Yeah, even in the small set I've seen, they've had a couple that weren't quite up to snuff, but even so they weren't total losses -- only rarely does dialog fall down (and even then, they mostly talk like real people, not like robots
Pet peeve plot all too common in SF TV: some longstanding character is suddenly suspected of alien influence/treason/perfidy/whatever uncharacteristic behaviour; everyone else suddenly goes along with the notion that they're subverted; this leads to various lame explanations for the behaviour (pon farr/infiltrating enemy/bad drugs/whatever). Um, if we know this person so well, why is trust so readily shattered, and why is it so easily recovered next week? I *hate* that.
I was all prepared to be pissed at one ep of SG-1 that threatened to go that way... and next thing we know. Gen.Hammond has made up his mind that our people DO know what they're talking about and he should act on it, regardless of appearances. IOW, they don't mangle the concept of personal and professional trust just to contrive a plot. Hooray!!
(BTW, I write character-driven SF myself
and that bald chick in the Star Trek movie!... (Score:2)
I'm so glad I haven't wasted any of my time with the subsequent movies or series. I mean, if it's that bad on the first movie you shudder to think of how bad it must have been by, oh, the 4th or 5th year of the first spinoff series.
Re:and that bald chick in the Star Trek movie!... (Score:2)
Re:Stargate: maybe best to leave now? (Score:4, Informative)
How much of a fan of the show are you, if you can't remember that James Spader [imdb.com] was only in the movie, and it was Michael Shanks [imdb.com] that played the role of Daniel Jackson in the TV series.
Doesn't that creap you out? (Score:4, Funny)
or perhaps the original poster was saying that the show hasn't been the same since it began... without James Spader.
Re:Stargate: maybe best to leave now? (Score:3, Interesting)
(Unrelated nitpick on the subject of voices and dialects. Jackson is a linguist, right? Why, oh why, does he mispronounce "Goa'uld" as "goold" just like O'Neill and the other humans? As a linguist, shouldn't he be able to pronounce it "go-ah-oold" just like Teal'c and the other non-Earthlink characters do? Grumble-mumble.)
Re:Stargate: maybe best to leave now? (Score:2)
Actually, one of the reasons that Michael Shanks got the part was that he turned up for his audition, and the casting people thought he was James Spader! This was intentional on Michael's part of course.
As to the reason why he's left the show, it was creative differences with the direction the show was taking. Michael more or less said, if you continue to write the show in this way, I'll leave. They said, here's your hat. *sigh* A pity. Still, Jonus Quinn isn't too bad, even though they've really made his character super smart. Corin Nemic really can't loose, can he ?
Re:Stargate: maybe best to leave now? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Stargate: maybe best to leave now? (Score:2)
Re:Stargate: maybe best to leave now? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's kind of never been the same, since James Spader never appeared in the TV series. That character (Daniel Jackson) is played by Michael Shanks.
And while the Egyptian motif is one of the most unique in sci-fi...
The Egyptian motif is relevant only to one of the continuing subplots... the Goa'uld, a race of parasitic nasties, hijacked Egyptian mythology several thousand years ago for their own purposes. We've also seen cultures descended from Mongolian horsemen, native America, and classical Greece, among others, plus a bunch that have no clear predecessors. One frequently referenced race of good guys, the Asgard, are related to the Norse pantheon.
I think the show is still fairly fresh... Daniel's departure has allowed them to do a few completely new things, and there's still a lot to explore (who created the Stargate system, for instance?). And come on, guys, this is a popular TV series that's managed to handle seriously abstract concepts like Von Neuman machines, and turn them into major plot elements! I do agree that they should recognize when it's time to quit gracefully, but I don't think that time has come yet.
Re:Stargate: maybe best to leave now? (Score:3, Interesting)
(Following their lead, I won't explain it either. If you don't know what Schrodinger's cat is, please turn in your Slashdot pass at the front desk and show yourself out.)
Re:Stargate: maybe best to leave now? (Score:2)
If you don't know what Schrodinger's cat is,
I know! You can find them in boxes in Nethack sometimes! (but half the time they seem to be dead for some reason)
;-)
Re:Stargate: maybe best to leave now? (Score:2)
Re:Stargate: maybe best to leave now? (Score:2)
Re:Man that would suck (Score:2)
Re:Man that would suck (Score:2)
Ringworld! (Score:3, Informative)
A Ringworld movie has been in the works for some time, but, Hollywood being what it is, it seems to be stuck in limbo. The latest news I could find on the project is about a year old; here's a link [visimag.com] to a news story that sounds like it may have been real. No word on whether anything will come of it, but I'm sure they'll do it eventually; look how long we had to wait for Lord of the Rings.
Re:Ringworld! (Score:3, Insightful)
From space, the Ringworld would look like an astronomical object until you got close enough, at which point it would look like an infinite black wall, or like an infinite flat plain, depending on your orientation to it. From the surface, it would look just like a planet, only with an almost-invisible arch over it. It wouldn't even look cool from altitude above it; it's just too big. (There is a series of 3D renderings of the Ringworld available here [rahul.net]. They're interesting, but they're definitely not gripping movie material.)
So any attempt to make a Ringworld movie is going to be crippled by the fact that they either have to make special effects that aren't that cool, or they have to make ones that aren't that accurate.
But-- as if that weren't enough-- the biggest problem is that the plot would pretty much have to be gutted. There's a ton of back-story in Ringworld: the Puppeteers, the Kzinti, the Man-Kzin wars, lucky Teela, invulnerable spaceship hulls, sunflowers, stasis fields, hyperdrive... it's a great book, but as a movie it would either be incomprehensible to most of the world, or include five minutes of exposition for every ten minutes of action. I mean, there's more intricate background in Ringworld than there is in The Lord of the Rings! LOTR got away with, "Once upon a time there was a bad man who made a magical ring." Ringworld would need to go into detail on-- or at least mention-- a dozen or more key ideas that are basically unrelated to each other. It would be a tough screenplay to write.
The alternative, of course, is to get rid of Niven's characters and back-story. Just get the main characters-- just humans, none of those pesky and expensive aliens-- to the Ringworld, have 'em crash, and have 'em find a way off. But that's not a particularly interesting story. It'd be difficult to make it interesting without going into some discussion of who built the Ringworld and why, and Niven's own explanation is unacceptable unless they make a Protector movie first and release it as a prequel.
I hate to say it, but I suppose I'd rather not see Ringworld on the big screen.
Re:Ringworld! (Score:2)
On the other hand, don't forget that some of the backstory for Ringworld actually came after the fact. Ringworld, the novel, was published in 1970, before most of the Known Space series was written. Most readers didn't know about a lot of the backstory until years later! In particular, the novel didn't attempt to explain who created the Ringworld; it wasn't until Protector, three years later, that it became clear. One of Niven's early essays, in Tales of Known Space (1975), implies that Niven himself didn't know who built the thing... he sort of wrote himself into a corner with Protector.
Re:Man that would suck (Score:2)
In a variation on the ST world, I am still a fan of Andromeda.
Of course none of these are on the SciFi channel. Perhaps this is the one instance where Harlan Ellison (drat I remembered his name) is right and the pronuciation of SciFi is Skiffy, and for this channel has nothing to do with Science Fiction.
There are a few who like the idea of Xfiles on the Skiffy channel, I have never really followed the show however.
Your opinions may differ.
-Rusty
Re:priorities (Score:3, Informative)
They already have [mgm.com].
Back episodes on DVD (Score:2)
I have no idea what the marketing people are trying to accomplish by holding back older episodes... but for what it's worth, the sci-fi channel is running all the SG-1 episodes from the beginning. Consult your local listings, etc.
Re:Back episodes on DVD (Score:2)
Or you could just tune in on Monday nights from 7:00 to 11:00 Eastern time. Seeing as how Sci-Fi is a nationally programmed network, checking local listings is unnecessary.
This, my friends, is why god gave us TiVos.
Re:Back episodes on DVD (Score:2)
And why, Prometheus-like, we hacked them to add many, many hours to their capacity...
Space Above and Beyond - burnt apparently (Score:2, Informative)
Re: Firefly, an alternative sci-fi show (Score:4, Informative)
> Ok, this maybe a bit off topic, but i think a majority of
Also, people who watch the first episode and haven't been back might want to give it another try. E1 was by far the worst episode they've aired. The characters are really starting to get interesting.
Re: Firefly, an alternative sci-fi show (Score:2)
Oh, I don't know. It had some pretty outstanding moments. Apart from the one that everybody already knows about, there was the scene where the captain was under cover trying to pass himself off as a harmless job-hunter to the local sheriff. His story isn't perfect, though, because he claims to have gotten a lead on a job in town from a Mr. So-n-so.
"When was the last time you talked to Mr. So-n-so?" asks the sheriff.
"Never did myself," says the captain. "Heard about him through (blah blah, some other connection)."
"Well, that's funny, because Mr. So-n-so died 'bout nine months back."
"Did he now?" asks the captain. Then there's like a five second pause, which is a long time on television. "So..." he says, real slowly, "would his job be available?"
Cracked me up. What a great show.
Re:Firefly, an alternative sci-fi show (Score:2)
And half the fun of that rather unique introduction is that she wasn't at all embarassed by it. She cheerfully greeted Mal and immediately started to tell him what was wrong with his engines. Makes Scotty look like a slacker, doesn't it?
Re:Low quality SciFi? (Score:2)
In the episode where they all had their memories wiped... one of the few things he remembered was a "bald guy in a t-shirt", "I think he was important to me", "I think his name was Homer".
And in the episode in Antarctica... He said to Teal'c, "D'oh! I forgot to record the Simpsons." Teal'c looked at him strangely. "It's very important to me."
Words (Score:3, Funny)
Wal-Mart must have been having a blowout sale on apostrophes when they wrote the series guide.