Farscape to Return? Is Sci-Fi Channel Redeemed? 236
Cyno01 writes "I was just watching Firefly and switching to Taken during commercials (i'm a thief i know), and I caught a commercial for Sci-Fi 2003. It looks like there's going to be a few new actual sci-fi shows, and some not. Tremors: The Series, Children of Dune and another talkshow-esq looking thing called The Dream Team with Annabelle and Michael. Also it looks like Stargate: SG1 and yes, Farscape, are still alive and kicking."
Television... (Score:1, Funny)
I thought that went out of style after they cancelled ST:TNG?
People still watch Television? (Score:2)
Tremors The SerieS!!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Putp
Re:Tremors The SerieS!!!! (Score:2)
Re:Tremors The SerieS!!!! (Score:3, Funny)
Tremors: The Series
Season 1, Episode 1
[town hick] Whoa Sher'f, y'all feel that tremor? Felt sorta like one o' them big ol' worms..
[sheriff] naw, them worms 're all kil'd off..
.
. much later
.
.
Season 13, Episode 9
[town hick] Whoa Sher'f, y'all feel that tremor? Felt sorta like one o' them big ol' worms..
[sheriff] naw, them worms 're all kil'd off..
unbelievable
possibly (Score:5, Informative)
A novel concept for
Re:possibly (Score:3, Informative)
Farscape (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Farscape (Score:2)
Re:Farscape (Score:2)
I always thought it was a rip-off of gilligan's island. anyone remember gilligan's planet?
Re:Farscape (Score:2)
Farscape (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Farscape (Score:5, Informative)
*mumbles something about a Slashdot story based off of some guy's malinformed impression of a TV commercial he saw as he was swapping back and forth between two shows*
Only the remainder of Farscape... (Score:4, Informative)
After that, it's over, ending in a helluva cliffhanger.
No Farscape for you!
I thought... (Score:5, Interesting)
What would be really interesting, and my question for Santa Claus this year, is that SciFi is going for another Season of Farscape, and perhaps even more. I know, it costs a lot of money, but it's damn well the best (Sci Fi) series I've ever seen...
Tremors? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Tremors? (Score:2)
From looking at the site, the premise, and the character bios, they might have a pretty decent shot at making a show that's actually watchable. And it's got Burt Gummer. If you've seen Tremors 3, you'll know that even if the movies weren't high-quality cinema, that Burt can just be a fun damn character to watch in action.
I'll admit, it's hard to give a logical explanation of why I'm looking forward to the series, but I am. And hey, they're getting Christopher Lloyd for two episodes to play a mad scientist.
Re:Tremors? (Score:2)
there is a tremors 3???????
Must watch.
Re:Tremors? (Score:2, Funny)
Because you're the only person here able to form an independent decision right? If anyone disagrees with you it's not because different people value different aspects of story, or even God forbid that opinions other than yours might have been arrived at from a valid position. No, anyone disagreeing with you is obviously simply a mental incompetent. Must be a very comfortable view of the world.
Re:Tremors? (Score:5, Insightful)
How do I know you've never actually watched Farscape?
1. Star Trek is in a nice clean universe where everything turns out fine at the end of the episode. Crewmen wearing certain shirts die or when that practice stopped death became an almost avoided subject.
Farscape is in a dirty, grimy universe where everything is out to get you. Major characters die. Enemies become friends... or at least necessary to trust them for a while.
2. Star Trek deals with holographic sentience, space-time anomolies/fluxuations, omnipresent alien beings, transwarp confibulators, blah blah blah
Farscape deals with manslaughter, death of loved ones, bounty hunters, torture, s&m, farts, piss, sexuality, emotional pain, intense love, uncomfortable situations, insanity, drug use, outright murder, seduction, loss of life on a massive scale, weapons of mass destruction, spirituality and many other more 'human' topics.
3. Star Trek uses a little bit of makeup on every single alien actor. Thus a universe of bipeds all roughly the same body type.
Farscape uses this method along with elaborate makeup/costumes and 'muppets' which are used to bring to life non-bipedal alien life forms or short stumpy annoying stab-you-in-the-back crew members whose farts cause a helium-like effect to those that inhale it.
4. Star Trek's crew is composed of mostly a bunch of stuffy, by-the-book Federation employees who are all good folk working towards the good of the universe.
Farscape's crew is composed mostly of a bunch of escaped prisoners along with a bumbling <injoke>erpling</injoke> astronaut, former antagonists, and rejects of the universe. It takes serious time and shared experiences for bonds to solidify enough that trust can be built. Everyone is looking out for number one.
5. Star Trek is straight science-fiction historically with a political or social message to bring to the masses while having a heavy focus on the technology.
Farscape is a dark comedy and a tragic love story that happens in a science-fiction setting.
I could go on and on about how Farscape has innovated in the realm of television science-fiction and how it is different than Star Trek, but I won't.
Re:Tremors? (Score:3, Funny)
In Star Trek, everyone is looking out for Number One [sixtiescity.com] as well.
Slight difference, however, between the two series.
Re:Tremors? (Score:2)
Of course everyone is looking for her! It's like "Where's Waldo" with her! Has she been in "Voyager" or "Enterprise"? If not, she made up for it by being in "Babylon 5" and "Earth: Final Conflict".
Re:Tremors? (Score:2)
I haven't heard a computer voice for "Enterprise" yet, but I doubt we ever will (unless they do a time travel to 24th century, which isn't asking too much... they've already sent Captain to the 29th century...)
Re:Tremors? (Score:2)
Re:Tremors? (Score:2)
Re:Tremors? (Score:2)
Re:Tremors? (Score:2)
Really, though Firefly is much less dark than Farscape. Also, notice the lack of aliens - which is actually kind of refreshing.
Great! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Great! (Score:2)
From DICT.ORG
4 definitions found
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)
Joke \Joke\, n. [L. jocus. Cf Jeopardy, Jocular, Juggler.]
1. Something said for the sake of exciting a laugh; something
witty or sportive (commonly indicating more of hilarity or
humor than jest); a jest; a witticism; as, to crack
good-natured jokes.
And gentle dullness ever loves a joke. --Pope.
Or witty joke our airy senses moves To pleasant
laughter. --Gay.
2. Something not said seriously, or not actually meant;
something done in sport.
Inclose whole downs in walls, 't is all a joke.
--Pope.
In joke, in jest; sportively; not meant seriously.
Practical joke. See under Practical.
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)
Joke \Joke\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Joked; p. pr. & vb. n.
Joking.]
To make merry with; to make jokes upon; to rally; to banter;
as, to joke a comrade.
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)
Joke \Joke\, v. i. [L. jocari.]
To do something for sport, or as a joke; to be merry in words
or actions; to jest.
He laughed, shouted, joked, and swore. --Macaulay.
Syn: To jest; sport; rally; banter. See Jest.
From WordNet (r) 1.7
joke
n 1: a humorous anecdote or remark [syn: gag, laugh, jest,
jape, yak, wheeze]
2: activity characterized by good humor [syn: jest, jocularity]
3: a ludicrous or grotesque act done for fun and amusement
[syn: antic, prank, trick, caper, put-on]
v 1: tell a joke; speak humorously; "He often jokes even when he
appears serious" [syn: jest]
2: act in a funny or teasing way [syn: jest]
Don't think so... (Score:3, Informative)
Armegedon is upon us (Score:3, Insightful)
Overall, though, Sci-Fi is really turning into Shit-Fi. I didn't mind the horror movies as much as everyone else, since I like horror movies, this past Tuesday I stayed home 'cause I was sick, and all that was on Sci-Fi was 1 mystery and 2 thrillers, with only a minor sci-fi tie in.
Long have the days of petitioning Sci-Fi to re-up Bab5 or Crusade gone past.
So sad.
Dream Team (Score:3, Funny)
Dreamer: OK, so I had this dream last night..
Host A: Repressed lesbian fantasies!
Dreamer: No, wait, there wasn't even a girl in the dream!
Host B: Repressed lesbian fantasies!
Dreamer: I'm not even a woman!
Host A: Repressed lesbian fantasies!
Re:Dream Team (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Dream Team (Score:2)
You linked to Farscape Page - BUT DID NOT READ IT! (Score:5, Informative)
A small clip from the SCIFI-FAQ: [scifi.com]
Additionally, in past seasons, Farscape had built upon its lead-in program (i.e., had more viewers than the program preceding it - a standard industry indicator of a show's success). For example, during the summer of 2001, Farscape increased 44% in ratings and 51% in households over its lead-in, The Invisible Man. However, this past summer, Farscape lost 29% of its lead-in program in terms of ratings, and 27% in households.
Based on this FarScape lost market share when SciFi cancelled I-Man. Two great campy shows work better than one.
I guess I can not understand network programming.
PS: When you go to the FarScape page... A pop-up about the cancelation appears. My guess it is still cancelled.
Re:You linked to Farscape Page - BUT DID NOT READ (Score:4, Insightful)
IT was campy sort of a mix between:
1.Max Headroom(Edison had the brit fiora chick as a controller always a little sexual tension, invisible man has brit chick doctor.
2. The Hulk - Ivisible man gets to much quicksilver in the system and starts bugging out.
Edge of Night(whatever that vampire show is with Skanky and the vampire is a cop) Just like the Invisible Man he was an asshole in the past and is atoning for his sins, using his power for good, but they both lapse into old ways sometimes.
And you know, I never really made it to Farscape, cause I liked the invisible man so much, and I didnt realize I was watching an old show.
Puto
Re:You linked to Farscape Page - BUT DID NOT READ (Score:2)
Re:You linked to Farscape Page - BUT DID NOT READ (Score:3, Insightful)
I actually stopped watching after the third season. IMHO Farscape really does not deserve to be cancelled after one bad season. They should have just lowered the production costs of the series and released a final fifth season.
Farscape (Score:5, Informative)
I was at Animal Logic last week and asked our producer if she'd heard anything different from Andrew (one of the exec producers) - nada. It's all winding down - on Thursday we hit a local pub for the VFX wrap party then that's it :-(
Anyway, at this point I'm rooting for Firefly ;-)
Re:Farscape (Score:3, Interesting)
The last two or three episodes have become interesting. I'll miss the dark feel of Farscape and will never get over the western feel of Firefly... but if it actually makes it for a few seasons this may prove to be a very interesting ride.
Re:Farscape (Score:4, Funny)
Interesting? Is that the best you can do? Did you even watch "War Stories?"
Zoe: Hold it, Jayne. This is something the captain's gotta do for himself.
Mal: (fighting, muffled) No, it's not!
Zoe: Oh. (everybody opens fire)
Re:Farscape (Score:4, Interesting)
I like the character development of Firefly, as it's progressing *very* nicely. I like the humor and there is enough action to balance things out. There are also no punches pulled when it comes to the dirty and bloody things that they go through. And for the drooling-needs-sex-badly-"boobies!" set there was a great woman-woman kissing scene last night. Although you will be dissapointed because it was done in good taste (network TV and all that).
The western theme is a serious negative for me, though. So much, that when I hear the theme song I wonder if it's really a show I want to watch.
Re:Farscape (Score:3, Interesting)
"Our Mrs. Reynolds" actually had a much hotter girl-girl scene, although nothing happened. It was all steamy eye-contact and double entendres and whatnot. Hot as fire, though.
The western theme is a serious negative for me, though.
Matter of taste, I suppose. Personally I love it. Such a refreshing change from the aseptic Star Treks and the wormholes-and-wacky-aliens Farscape.
I guess it all comes down to bullets for me. Although I didn't plan it this way, I've found that I will watch any sci-fi show where they use bullets instead of laser guns or whatever. "Firefly" and "Stargate SG-1" are my two big ones these days.
I particularly liked Zoe's little side-comment to Simon last night, as she handed him a revolver. "Six shots, the drop it. Just move on."
Re:Farscape (Score:2)
Re:Farscape (Score:2)
If I figure out an explanation for that one that makes sense in the context of the show, I'll let you know. But until then, I'm putting it in the same category as the ubiquitous artificial gravity: it just is, and the fact that it is isn't relevant to the story, so don't worry about it.
Re:Farscape (Score:2)
Actually makes sense in a way. Assuming that we don't end up with phasers or some other energy-based weapon:
We'll inevitably continue the current bullet-kevlar battle... as they make better stronger kevlar, people will keep developing bullets to pierce it
Next assumption: At some point, the kevlar gets good enough that nothing you can do to the bullet lets you pierce it. Might break a few ribs, but no penetration.
So what's the next step? Add more energy to the bullet. Can't really increase the mass, so increase the speed... assuming no massive improvements in gunpowder efficiency are available, the next logical step is to dump gunpowder, and go with something next-gen, like magnetic acceleration.
Granted, this could all just be my pipe-dream, but it makes sense.
(And Whedon, if you see this, feel free to name the inventor of the magnetic guns after me in an aside from one of the characters... I'd prefer Kaylee. Thanks.)
Re:Farscape (Score:2)
Hmm. Sounds like kind of a reach to me. Railguns require enormous amounts of electrical power to accelerate even bullet-sized masses to dangerous speeds, and the guns they use on the show are small. They could be equipped with some kind of super-batteries, but that has all sorts of implications. Can's open, worms everywhere, and so on.
No, I think it's better to just assume that the guns are your typical chemical type, and that the bullets are powered by gunpowder or something like it, and that they sound different from real guns because of... oh, let's say magic.
Besides, remember the scene in "Our Mrs. Reynolds" when Mal wanted to use Vera to shoot their way through the net? They had to wrap her in a space suit because she needed ambient air to fire. Needing ambient air implies the need for an oxidizer, which implies combustion, which leads to the conclusion that it's gunpowder or something like it.
And Whedon, if you see this....
He hates it when people call him "Whedon." He doesn't even like "Mr. Whedon." It's just "Joss."
Re:Farscape (Score:2)
Does Vera make the "ping" noise? Perhaps Jayne is so attached to "her" because she's the real deal.
But you're right, it's all a reach, as I pretty much said. Of course, I'm waiting for the explanation on how anti-gravity works. Heck, if they can do that, why not zero-point energy extraction in a handgun.
Re:Farscape (Score:2)
Didn't notice. Good question, though.
Of course, I'm waiting for the explanation on how anti-gravity works.
That's in the writer's guide. (Well, not anti-gravity, but rather ship's artificial gravity, which is what I assume you meant.) It's right there in black and white: the answer is magic. Ship's artificial gravity works by magic, which is to say that it's not important to the story, and it will never be important to the story. So don't worry about it. And if that's good enough for the writers, it's good enough for me.
Re:Farscape (Score:2)
So let's call a truce, and just declare the gun pings to be created by magic as well.
Re:Farscape (Score:2)
No, it's definitely not on the web. As far as I know, it exists only in three-ring-binder form.
Re:Farscape (Score:2)
Yeah, I thought that might be true as I was writing my post, but I was too lazy to fact-check myself. Oops.
Can gunpowder burn, then, in a vacuum? Or does it still require ambient oxygen to ignite?
Re:guns in a vacuum. (Score:2)
overheating is a serious issue with guns. I was a machinegunner for a year in US Army. it's not a matter of the gun being too hot to handle, you can always wear heat resistant gloves for that. Nomex was a godsend to the infantry. the issue with overheating is that the metal expansion will affect normal function of the weapon. the first part of a gun to overheat is the barrel, for obvious reasons. once the barrel gets overheated, it will expand and hamper the casing from being extracted and ejected. once that begins to happen, the overall cycle of the gun will slow down. I've seen a M240B machinegun go from 850 rounds per minute, to about 400, in the course of about 10,000 rounds, fired in controlled bursts.
a pistol is much less prone to overheating, simply because it does not put that many bullets out at once. honestly, I think that the "has to have atmosphere to fire" bit was just oversight on the script writers. most civilians don't know anything about guns or physics.
as far as the refreshing amount of guns as opposed to laser weapons, I think murphy's law would apply. "anything that can go wrong, will go wrong." hand lasers may be practical in this future setting, but simply too much of a pain in the ass to upkeep, fix and purchase, whereas gunpowder-based guns have been around for several centuries, are cheap and are proven and refined weapons.
Re:Farscape (Score:2)
Re:Farscape (Score:2)
I also saw a post somewhere - maybe on the Usenet group - that someone said the revolver chamber wasn't actually revolving. Didn't see that myself, but if so..
Oh well, it's just a show, and I'm far over-analyzing...
Re:Farscape (Score:4, Insightful)
I *love* this show - the exact moment I fell in love was at the end of the first episode, when Mal kicked the bad-guy into the engines - my eyes bugged out and I literally nearly spat coke over the screen.
Firefly has excellent production values (look at 'Ariel' - that episode looks like a feature film for chrissakes), the VFX are exquisite, and I say that with all due jealousy and admiration:-)
I'm constantly delighted and surprised by every episode and have yet to see one I haven't enjoyed (and I *hate* westerns)
Re:Farscape (Score:2)
Right there with you. And amazingly, that hasn't been the high point of the show so far. Every week the bar gets bumped just a little bit higher. I'm still laughing about, "I'll learn as I go. (cut) So now I'm learning about carrying." Heh.
the VFX are exquisite
Man, yeah. I don't know anything about how they do things over there, but the 3D tracking can't be beat. Handheld background plates with CGI effects composited in, and the effects are positive bolted down. Really outstanding stuff.
Where the show really shines, though, is in the sets. They built the whole set for the Serenity, spent a fortune on it. It's like being there. Just amazing.
I'm constantly delighted and surprised by every episode and have yet to see one I haven't enjoyed
Yeah, the whole not-doing-too-well-in-the-ratings thing is kind of a letdown. Fox has been as supportive as anybody could ask so far, but it's tough going into the holidays not knowing what's going to happen. After he wrapped "War Stories," Joss said something like, "If we never make another one, I'm satisfied." Which is saying a whole heck of a lot, coming from him.
Supportive? (Score:2)
Ironic then, that another channel are running lots of promos for a canceled show.. tsk tsk
Re:Supportive? (Score:2)
That's not exactly accurate. Fox has spent quite a bit on marketing for the show, even going so far as to set up a pretty impressive official web site with message boards and whatnot. They didn't have to do that. Fox spent a blessed fortune on the pilot-- the sets alone cost more than most episodes. When they got a pilot that wasn't exactly what they wanted, they could have cancelled the show completely and put the pilot on a shelf, but they didn't. They ordered some more episodes and decided to give it a shot.
And the most important thing is that they don't show up at story meetings every Tuesday with a briefcase full of notes. Amazingly, there hasn't been one "more sex," "more proactive," or "can you Rastify him by about 10%?"
Fox could have been a lot worse.
Re:Supportive? (Score:2)
>>2 promos for the show? Since.. ever!
>That's not exactly accurate.
Actually yes it is, that is what fans are claiming - but i surmised I understand what you mean
> Fox has spent quite a bit on marketing for the
>show,
Well, that's not what people on http://www.fireflyfans.com or the offical board say, nor what they say in alt.tv.firefly or rec.arts.tv.sf - of course they may have been looking in the wrong direction.
> even going so far as to set up a pretty
>impressive official web site with message boards
>and whatnot.
Well, your milage may vary, but I don't think the official website is particularly impressive, and the messageboard is the one fox generally uses to all shows, simply adding some areas for Firefly is not that big a deal. However, the board is very interesting given that most of the actors hang out there inbetween shots, and some of them are down right chatty, and all come across as likeable people(instead of egomaniacs).
>They didn't have to do that.
I disagree. Because:
> Fox spent a blessed fortune on the pilot-- the
>sets alone cost more than most episodes.
If that is the case, one would think that they most definately would drum up interest to protect their investment.
> When they got a pilot that wasn't exactly what
>they wanted, they could have cancelled the show
>completely and put the pilot on a shelf, but
>they didn't. They ordered some more episodes and
>decided to give it a shot.
I suspect Berman likes Whedon from the old days... alas, money is her master in the end...
>And the most important thing is that they don't
>show up at story meetings every Tuesday with a
>briefcase full of notes. Amazingly, there hasn't
>been one "more sex," "more proactive," or "can
>you Rastify him by about 10%?"
This is of course paramount, that the tomato salesmen stay out of it - of course a cynic might say that its because they have already decided to cancel the show so they don't bother...
Don't get me wrong, i very much hope that they will keep their hands of it, place it in a good spot and run tons of promos so that it will grow into what they consider a hit... i just get a bit nervous when i read all the voices say that 'hiatus' is just another word for 'canceled'...
(And here hexapodia is not the key insight
Re:Supportive? (Score:2)
Can't say I'm too familiar with those sources; I don't spend a lot of time looking at any of those. But I did get something from Joss earlier tonight that implied that I was a wee bit mistaken. That is, I was right, but not completely so. I humbly corrected myself here [slashdot.org].
(And here hexapodia is not the key insight
Hexapodia is always the key insight. If it doesn't seem that way, it's just because you don't have all the facts yet.
Re:Supportive? (Score:2)
>Hexapodia is always the key insight. If it
>doesn't seem that way, it's just because you
>don't have all the facts yet.
I admit to not being omnipotent
(perhaps its just this zone that is slowing me down though
Re:Supportive? (Score:2)
Re:Farscape (Score:2)
Firefly on SciFi (Score:2)
Re:Farscape (Score:3, Informative)
The Straight Shit:
Firefly has been placed on hiatus. What that means is that Fox has not ordered any additional episodes beyond the ones (15, I think) that have already been produced. This does not mean the show has been cancelled; when a show goes on hiatus, that means the network is trying to figure out what their next step should be. They can move the show to another night, or re-tool it somehow with the cooperation of the producers, or they can just give up on it completely. The decision has not been made yet.
I believe that Fox knows the show is in a timeslot-of-death. Friday night at 8:00 is not a particularly fertile ground in which to plant the seed of an hour-long, serious, continuity-heavy, science-fiction drama. So the prevailing opinion is that Fox is going to find a new night and time for the show. The leading candidate as of a few days ago was Monday night at 9:00, but rumors have surfaced around the office lately that they're considering Thursday night at 8:00, opposite "Survivor" and "Friends."
Moving Firefly to a new timeslot would be good, and an easy fix. A somewhat harder fix might come if the network decides to go to M.E. with notes. Joss doesn't typically respond well to notes. He's a reasonable guy and all, but he's not big with the compromising of his vision. See, Joss is a thinker, and he's already got most everything he wants to do with Firefly for the next year or two planned out in his head. If Fox comes in with notes that say, "Drop three main characters and introduce a romantic interest for the captain," he'll probably not be too agreeable. At that point, M.E. has the option of either going along to get along, closing down the show, or shopping it around to another network. And they're not in the greatest position to shop it around to another network right now.
But the bottom line is that Firefly has metric assloads of critical acclaim, and a positively rabid fan-base. Fox knows that it's possible to take a little show with a few dedicated fans and turn it into a hit: see X-Files, The. They're not in any big hurry to cancel the show until they're sure it's not going anywhere.
For evidence of this, just think about David E. Kelly's last show, "Girls' Club." Fox dropped that particular hot potato after only two episodes aired. They knew that the show was going nowhere, and had no particular hopes of saving it. So they cut their losses. The fact that they haven't done this with Firefly is reassuring in the extreme.
Firefly... (Score:2)
This has truly not been a good year of TV, for me.
Re:Firefly... (Score:2)
I've got a journal article up about it, and I'm about to post another, if you're interested in joining in.
Re:Farscape (Score:2)
Re:Farscape (Score:2)
This is false. The sets were scheduled to be chainsaw. Because of fan response, Sci-Fi decided to put the sets into storage for the interum. Even if they had, however, Moya's biggest expense was design. They've got blueprints and better ideas now, so rebuilding Moya would be materials and labor.
Check the Save Farscape website for more details
And help Firefly... (Score:2)
http://fireflysupport.com/
Quality manages.. hang on, what am i saying this is for profit tv... oh well
Animated Farscape (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Animated Farscape (Score:2)
I'll ask around, but I haven't heard anything about it yet...
Re:Animated Farscape (Score:2)
Scifi redeemed itself... (Score:2, Insightful)
Sci Fi now following the Comedy Central model (Score:4, Interesting)
They show cheap, mostly bad sequel films out of some library of second rate productions I assume they have some kind of generic access to...like Turner Classic Movies showing the films they already own.
Now they have canned the origial Star Trek (the only reason I watched Sci Fi) even though they have exclusive broadcast rights for the next several years.
Basically they suck.
Cancellations, Etc. (Score:2, Insightful)
Farscape still has 13 episodes left (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Farscape still has 13 episodes left (Score:2)
the SciFi Channel can never be redeemed. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:the SciFi Channel can never be redeemed. (Score:2)
Re:the SciFi Channel can never be redeemed. (Score:2, Interesting)
chrisd Changed The Subject (Score:3, Interesting)
2002-12-07 02:21:20 Sci-Fi Channel's Not Dead Yet (articles,tv) (accepted)
IMO they should keep Farscape, its one of the best Sci-Fi shows thats been on this millenium, but if they can't afford it, i guess cancling it is better then the Sci-Fi channel going bankrupt and being bought by FOX or something.Re:chrisd Changed The Subject (Score:2)
I don't see how that's better - I don't have my Farscape either way...
Farscape only 11 episodes left (Score:2, Informative)
From what dept? (Score:3, Funny)
First off, his name is John Edward. There is no "S" in Edward. Lastly, you didn't finish it... you should have said he is a big douche. Yet, that would still be incorrect. As we all know from South Park, John Edward is the biggest douche in the universe. Also, if he really believes that dead people talk to him, then he's a stupid douche.
Re:From what dept? (Score:2)
The Sci-Fi network people are idiots, they cancel the Invisible Man and Farscape and show John Edward? Either that or they are cheap bastards!
Just for that I started to boycott Sci-Fi, plenty of other stuff on the other channels in addition to HBO, Showtime, Movie Channel, Encore, etc. It's too bad I don't have a Nielsen box...
Children of Dune (Score:3, Interesting)
They're hitting the dryer portion of the series but it puts them a movie (2 books) closer to what I thought was the best parts of the Dune series; the latter post-God-Emperor-Leto books.
I just hope they cast the roles of young Leto and Ghola Duncan Idaho appropriately. Dune ruined me for other science fiction in that most stuff I have read since inhaling the series seems superficial in comparison. Dune's deep plotlines which take many books to unravel.
I'd also like to point out that the prequel novels undertaken by Frank's son Brian and sci-fi novelist Kevin J. Anderson really augmented my appreciation for how well thought out the Dune series really was. Much to my surprise, the Dune legacy is well represented by the collaboration of these two authors.
On a side note, I don't think the studios appreciate the fact that good science fiction movies/series might not bring in the immediate blockbuster bucks at the box office, but their shelf life is much greater than the latest Schwartzeneger film for example. Sci fi buffs will watch their favorite movies every time they come on, buy the DVD and other related items. The returns don't necessarily show up immediately, but the revenue is there. It's a sign of the stock market mentality ** MAKE MONEY NOW ** with little long term strategy...
Re:Children of Dune (Score:3, Interesting)
No, you are not the only one. I was thrilled when I saw the commercial.
The SCIFI version of Dune was so much better than the Hollywood rendition. So much so that it was ridiculous.
I agree wholeheartedly. The CGI worms were a bit weak in some scenes, but certainly no worse than the rendering in major studio movies like spiderman. The thing that really shined in the sci-fi channel's adaptation was the character development. There's no way to get a book like Dune into a two hour movie without slaughtering it. By using the mini-series format, Sci-Fi allowed themselves more time to include details from the book.
A good example of this was their decision to show fremen-piloted 'thopters being used in the final battle. It's been years since I read DUNE, but I seem to remember a section in the book where Paul was shown a captured ornithopter.
Another good thing the sci-fi channel did was to have scenes that hinted at the future, like in Paul's vision of the sand worms prior to the battle. That scene showed the dunes turning into grass-covered hills. Obviously, that meant nothing to people new to Dune, but I was thrilled that they managed to slip that in.
Minor annoyance: I'd like to just once see a Dune adaptation with an ornithopter that takes off by flapping its wings.
Is the Sci-Fi Channel Redeemed? (Score:2)
Sci-Fi, and it's owner, USA Networks, has never been about anything BUT money. They aren't going to give a show a second chance if they think it's good and can build. If a show doesn't produce the numbers, it's out. It's like the short story (and Sci-Fi did a movie on this) "The Cold Equations." They're about numbers and nothing less. At one time they focused on Sci-Fi and aired shows that told intelligent stories. Now it's nothing more than the Grade-B-Hack-'n'-Slash-Bad-Horror-Movie Channel. But the movies they often show, while insulting our intelligence, make money, so they do it.
Maybe it's worth it to get one or two movies a year that are fantastic (like their version of Dune). Personally, I stopped watching them years ago. I tuned in to watch a movie called "The Cube" and got so fed up with the commercial breaks that went on for 4 minutes (I timed them), that I set the VCR and left the room. I watched the rest later and haven't watch a single show on this channel since unless I could tape it and skip the commercials in playback.
Since I had friends into Xena, I started watching Xena when they were showing several episodes a night -- but they aired it in (almost) reverse order (and, for those that don't know, Xena is a show with a strong story arc). When they started showing it from the beginning, every day, they ended it at the end of a quarter, without finishing up with the episodes they had. Then they ran Hercules in the same time the next quarter and ended that, without ending the series, at the end of the quarter. I gave up. I didn't want to get involved in any series and start enjoying it only to have the rug yanked out from under me and not be able to see it all the way through.
There was also a well written and well acted show called "The Invisible Man." Sci-Fi stated that it needed to pull in certain numbers to remain on the air. It made those numbers, but they decided it wasn't doing well enough. At least they gave the prodcuers time to tie up the plot threads.
Face it. Sci-Fi channel doesn't care about SF, they care about money. We'd all be better off if we stopped watching it, let their ratings drop, then only watched their network when they aired intelligent shows. Maybe we, as SF fans, have ourselves to blame -- we keep watching and giving them high numbers when they air crap. They make so much off the crap, they can afford to cancel the less profitable shows like Farscape.
It might be too late for Farscape, but not Firefly (Score:3, Interesting)
Say what you want about the start of the program, but this is seriously one of the highest quality shows put on broadcast TV in years. Last night had torture, severed body parts, some amazingly good masturbation jokes, execution-style murder, eastern philosophy, an assault on a space station, marital conflict, an role for each member of the ensemble cast that still managed to define and grow each character, and (at least last night) a hot lesbian sex scene.
Also a badass schizophrenic psychic chick who was able to put down 3 commandos with 3 shots, while her eyes are shut.
I know I'm raving here, but I need to go one further. The show revels in setting up situations like the ones you've seen in every other television show, and then cutting the moment off at the knees.
For example: Force a woman to choose between her husband and her best friend that she's known longer and trusts more. The one left behind will be tortured to death. They've spent the whole first 20+ minutes of the episode setting up this conflict and they're due for a commercial any time now, so it's no surprise when the following exchange begins:
Villain: "I think you can have just one. Which wou-"
Character: "HIM!" (points at husband) "You _were_ going to ask me to choose, right?"
The villain looks like someone just took his favorite toy away.
Farscape may be gone, but given a chance Firefly can become just as important to the sci-fi pantheon. There's 2 episodes with definite airdates left, one of which is the (reportedly not very good) unaired pilot episode.
Give it a watch during December and you'll be doing yourself a favor.
Re:It might be too late for Farscape, but not Fire (Score:2)
Yes, 1x00 was pretty poor. Shame they didn't write it off and reshoot something stronger -- I'm sure if it had been shown as the pilot it would have damaged further ratings pretty badly
Of course, it might have been better without the crappy VCD format I saw it in
(And yes, I'm currently downloading 1x09 -- we don't get Fox in the UK)
You want Sci-Fi to do series again? (Score:2)
And I'll breeze by the fact that Straczynski's "Legend of the Rangers" never went beyond the pilot, due to the fact that they're moving away from Space Opera.
But, we have a way to stop this. And I'm deadly serious. Don't watch the events. It's that simple. Show them that you don't care that they spent x million dollars on , that you want series. And do it by not watching the events initially. If you want, watch it the second time around. It's not like they're not going to show it a few more times, before the DVD release.
So, sit back, and wait 3 more months for Taken, Firestarter Remake 3, etc. And then tell them why you're not watching.
Fortunately, there's been a good amount of science fiction on for the past couple of years, and not on the Sci-Fi channel. But if they can survive by doing one gigantic event a quarter (read the old press releases), then they won't do series. Personally, I wish they could do like the Brits - a 6-episode run of a show. If it does well, another "season" next year. The problem is that Science Fiction is expensive to do, sets and all. They might need to avoid space opera, do more like I-man.
Anyhow, time to go watch last night's tape of Firefly - 2nd time will hopefully be even better.
Yes! PAssivity! (Score:3, Funny)
Hmm, that would eliminate half the posts on
Really, the model here is the rescue of Star Trek for one more season, 30+ years ago. If no one says anything SciFi will only be sure that their judgment as to its declining popularity was correct (see the FAQ). I think the fan reaction is admirable in an age where people people complain about their TV shows, and politicians, and so on, without ever doing anything about it.
Now, if you don't like the dissensiom, "Move on." -- there are other stories to read.
Re:Yes! PAssivity! (Score:2)
Maybe you didn't understand me. IT'S A TELEVISION SHOW. Yes, it's a good one (I never said I didn't like it). Your response sounds as if I said, "All this pissing and moaning over damned human lives. STFU already. They're dead. Move on."
Do you see what I mean?
Now, if you don't like the dissensiom, "Move on." -- there are other stories to read.
Ahhh... come now... leave? You can't make me! Nany-nany-boo-boo!
Re:Yes! Passivity! (Score:2)
Well over a million people disagree, in the States alone. Don't trouble yourself with improving our tastes. That you don't have the same preferences in "shit" means
Re:For Christ's sake... (Score:2)
I'll admit that I didn't really like Farscape when it started out. A few months later, all I was hearing about at work was Farscape-this, Farscape-that, interspersed with the occasional bit of Everquest trivia. I decided to give the show another chance, and you know what? I liked it. I liked it a lot. It's involving, and they have fun with the story lines. When was the last time the Enterprise stopped at a pleasure planet and the crew dumped T'Pol and Captain what's-his-name off, insisting they don't come back for 10 days?
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's bad. A lot of people do like it, and think it's worth saving.
Incidentally, I'm glad that SG-1 is getting a reprieve, too. Others have said it, but it's not the best sci-fantasy, but it's at least it's consistently not-bad.
Re:For Christ's sake... (Score:2)
And, of course, it is now cancelled. The SciFi FAQ citied elsewhere is at least a balanced appraisal of their decision. I don't think some of their assumptions hold up, however; the time slot in particular irritated me. Friday night is about the weakest in the week. But this won't be the first time a network has chosen tripe over substance.
Re:NO REDEMPTION UNTIL MST3K COMES BACK (Score:2)
Re:NO REDEMPTION UNTIL MST3K COMES BACK (Score:2)