Warren Ellis's Global Frequency May Not Air 90
ajs writes "According to Ain't It Cool News, the WB network has cancelled Warren Ellis's Global Frequency, a wonderfully twisted modern-day SF TV series which may yet air, but the company that owns the series will now have to shop it around to other networks. If you're a fan of the comic series or you have just been starving for good non-space SF since the X-Files went away, you might want to send words of support to your favorite non-WB network. Slashdot has previously interviewed Ellis."
Re:MOD PARENT DOWN -1 REDUNDANT! (Score:2)
Re:Nice. (Score:2)
Re:Nice. (Score:2)
Re:hmmm... (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're an X-Files fan, wonderful. Love it to you heart's content. But, space aliens not withstanding, X-Files was not SF, good, bad or indifferent. It was fantasy.
Re:hmmm... (Score:2)
but X-files can be classified as SF I think.
It takes the scientific possibility that aliens could exist,
and explores some of the effects that could have. That's what SF is, extrapolation of known scientific facts, to see what effect they could have.
I did not watch the X-files often enough to elaborate further.
It most definately also falls into some other classifications as well,
but fantasy is more Charmed, Buffy, mutantX, Angel, not X-files AFAIK.
Definitions (Score:2)
Heh. A lot of people would object to calling Trek "hard core SF". The term "hard SF" is usually used to describe stuff that's heavily based on real-world modern-day science knowledge and theory. Larry Niven's "Neutron Star" is a good example.
The one thing that appears to be universally true about these genres is that if you ask X different people what the definition of "SF" is, you will get at least X different answers.
That's not a bug, it's a
Re:Definitions (Score:1)
'Course, that also applies to Niven in some instances - if you want to be anal about it, hard SF can turn into a small subset of near-future technotrillers without the Tom Clancy handwaving...
I think the difference between hard and soft SF has more to do with the rigourousness of the changelogs - as in: "Given this once change, what *else
Re:Definitions (Score:2)
I still think the basic definition of SF is quite clear:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Science fiction, generally speaking, is a form of speculative fiction which deals principally with the impact of imagined science and/or technology upon society or individuals.
----------
I still think this makes X-files SF, but makes Buffy fantasy.
Re:hmmm... (Score:2)
The X-Files was a documentary.
Re:hmmm... (Score:2)
A literary or cinematic genre in which fantasy, typically based on speculative scientific discoveries or developments, environmental changes, space travel, or life on other planets, forms part of the plot or background.
I would say that the X-Files qualify as SF.
Re:hmmm... (Score:2)
What if I told you that an episode of the X-Files was about monks who were bringing about the end of the world by calculating the permutations of the name of God on a computer. Sounds like a fairly plausible episode to me, and would not stick out from other X-Files episodes.... It also happens to be the plot of The Nine Billion Names of God, which won the World Science Fiction Convention's Retrospective Hugo for 1953 [noreascon.org].
Science fiction is a
Re:hmmm... (Score:2)
That being said, one of the distinctions is that SF makes a good faith effort to comply with the known laws of physics (at the time of writing), to postulate new laws or modifications of the existing laws of physics
Re:hmmm... (Score:2)
The definition of science fiction is, quite simply, that which a majority of the public calls science fiction.
Yes, this means the definition changes over time. It also means that your definition and mine might not agree and we can both be right or both wrong.
Personally, I'm in the camp of intent. If you intend
Re:hmmm... (Score:2)
Re:hmmm... (Score:2)
In general, a word or phrase which means whatever you say it means is effectively meaningless. If you describe a story (whether written or film, of whatever length) as SF, that should tell me something about the work. If there aren't at least some
Re:hmmm... (Score:2)
Ensign Ro? (Score:4, Funny)
Uh... no.
Re:Ensign Ro? (Score:1, Offtopic)
This is getting absolutely rediculous... (Score:4, Insightful)
* Wife Swap - Who watches this!? Some sick, twisted indiciduals, that's who.
* Survivor - Isn't this like the 80th episode or something? How many different spins can they put on the challenges?
* Big Brother - People tune in to this waiting, just anticipating two of the people boarded to have sex.
* Extreme Makeover - The epitome of our obsession with aesthetic qualities.
* Much, much more crap...
Please, turn it off!
LOST, Adult Swim, and various Comedy Central programs are the only reason I watch TV anymore. They're the only reason I haven't lost all hope in American entertainment.
Re:This is getting absolutely rediculous... (Score:2)
Re:This is getting absolutely rediculous... (Score:2)
Re:This is getting absolutely rediculous... (Score:2)
Re:This is getting absolutely rediculous... (Score:1, Funny)
Re:This is getting absolutely rediculous... (Score:2)
Re:This is getting absolutely rediculous... (Score:1)
Secondly, it's not acceptable because it tends to be used by non-Americans. There's a word for when you give a cultural group a name that the cultural group referred to does not approve of--epithet. USian is only an appropriate turn when you are a
It's not really so bad or misspelled. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's not really so bad or misspelled. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's not really so bad or misspelled. (Score:3, Informative)
Specficially, you are looking at everything that is on television today and comparing it only to the television that you remember because it was good enough to maintain a niche in our culture. Go look at Knight Rider and consider that for the time it came out it was reasonably well filmed television and slightly above average SF. It hurts just to say that, but it's true.
Reality TV got you down? Go watch some Candid Camera or America's Funniest Hom
Re:This is getting absolutely rediculous... (Score:1, Insightful)
They cost jack shit to produce.
Reality TV is simply a demonstration of marketing genius. The masses have, yet again, been convinced that something is worth watching through exposure to the media hype machine. It's really an incredible marketing victory... people have been completely willing to help the networks along with the largest profit margins they have ever known.
Re:This is getting absolutely rediculous... (Score:2)
So-called reality shows are a huge success for the television networks. The reason?
They cost jack shit to produce.
Didn't reality TV shows become popular around the time the Writers Guild of America was threatening to strike [time.com] around 2001? These shows don't need writers, so I kind of assumed it was a way of undermining the leverage of the Writers Guild's influence by propagating these kind of shows. Both Survivor [wikipedia.org] and the US version of Big Brother [wikipedia.org] started in 2000. The networks were probably aware a problem
Re:This is getting absolutely rediculous... (Score:2, Funny)
No, this is not a good thing. All it does is show that with enough makeup stupid ugly people can breed. Stupid and ugly people should not breed. It just goes against the natural laws of selection.
Re:This is getting absolutely rediculous... (Score:1)
Re:This is getting absolutely rediculous... (Score:1)
Re:This is getting absolutely rediculous... (Score:1)
There is a vast number of sick and twisted individuals out there! It's a giant market!
Re:This is getting absolutely rediculous... (Score:1)
You know, it really just says something about the way (most) people watch TV now. The reason these shows do well is because people are busy, and you don't have to make plans around being in front of the television at a particular time to catch an interesting show. Lots of the new reality shows are self contained, just like the Law&Order/CSI shows. You can flick through the channels, find one, and sit down and watch it, and understand what's happening without a recap or having ever seen the show before.
WB releases pilot (Score:5, Insightful)
Right now, Ellis and the folks are negotiating with other television stations with the pilot, which Ellis remarked as impressive. There's still hopes yet, folks. You might still be on the Global Frequency.
Re:WB releases pilot (Score:1)
I was really excited about the potential in this show. I am a big fan of Warren Ellis' work and had high hopes.
X-Files = Non-Space? (Score:3)
Re:X-Files = Non-Space? (Score:1)
The closest the series ever got to aliens was when an Alien meme took over a couple blocks of the city, turning them into mindless animals.
Re:X-Files = Non-Space? (Score:2)
Are you talking about *X-FILES* here? The pilot episode (01x01) was about a group of kids who were being abducted.
"The closest the series ever got to aliens..." was when hmm, let's see, one of them attacks Mulder in the X-Files movie? I'm only up to season 7, but I'm thinking that's
Re:X-Files = Non-Space? (Score:1)
There was one episode (Jump the shark) in which a virus was implanted inside two terrorists in a biological container. This container decomposed at a fixed rate and was set to release at a convention. The Lone Gunmen manage to contain the threat. Not much else that can be said without spoiling the episode.
Re:X-Files = Non-Space? (Score:1)
Re:X-Files = Non-Space? (Score:2)
Re:Global Frequency sounds like more of the same (Score:2, Informative)
Sure, the show summary sounds like more of the same, but the book dealt with issues like bioterror weapons in a large populated city, memetic viruses (ideas that reproduce and self propogate in a malignant way), and the terror organizations who carry out mass bombings.
But then again, you don't seem to be one of those people who'd actually read instead of reading a blurb.
Re:Global Frequency sounds like more of the same (Score:1)
--
Re:You\'re missing out. (Score:1)
btw, what's with the extra backslashes? slashdot isn't doing an extra addslashes before inserting into the db. proxy munging? bad browser?
--
OT question. (Score:2)
Totally offtopic question. This idea, stated as such, seems really... really... off-putting. Who believes that there are ideas, ideas, that we mustn't be exposed to, because they'll do something evil. Sounds like a standard censorship argument, with a blank into which can be written "Porn", "Scientology" or "Jesus". Is this what memetics is about? What a disappointment, if it is.
--grendel drago
Re:OT question. (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't think anyone doubts that ideas can be dangerous to those exposed to them. On the simplest level, "eat arsenic and you'll be cured of all disease" is an idea with lethal potential.
The only question would be what steps you feel are acceptable in fighting ideas. Can you only combat them with alternative ideas "don't touch it!" or can other steps ever be acceptable?
Does the mental capacity of t
Re:OT question. (Score:1)
Think good thoughts, brother.
--
Re:OT question. (Score:2)
Like the commonly held belief in many parts of Africa that having sex with a virgin will cure you of AIDS? This idea has caused the rape and subsequent spread of HIV to many children...
Re:Global Frequency sounds like more of the same (Score:1)
Re:Global Frequency sounds like more of the same (Score:4, Interesting)
You may not like science fiction of the X-Files variety, but that's tough. It is, in fact, speculative fiction, though almost always very soft SF (the difference between hard and soft SF being the extent to which it is rooted in science, and no there's no absolute line between the two).
And what are the odds that this show gives legitmacy to The Department of Fath^H^H^H^H Homeland Security
Ha! You don't know Ellis very well do you? Read Transmetropolitan someday (essentially it comes down to a distopian near-future with our protagonist, a reporter modeled on Hunter S Thompson, attempting to expose the corruption of society to itself). Ellis is anything but the kind of status-quo apologist that you suggest, and I suspect that the fact that he was willing to be involved in this series indicates a) that it was of a quality we have rarely if ever seen on television and b) the very reason that the WB couldn't stomach it.
I'll be glad if it never airs. So much crap on TV. I've got a grand total of four shows I bother to watch: 1) Enterprise, 2) Stargate, 3) MythBusters, and 4) BattleStar Galactica
Ulch. You're worried about status-quo apologism, and you hail modern Star Trek? I mean, I'm a softy for Star Trek too because I grew up with it, but to put those two concepts in the same post, suggesting that they are not so mutually exclusive as to be dangerous together is rather striking.
Doomed from the start (Score:3, Insightful)
X-Files, "non-space SF"? (Score:3, Insightful)
SF has *science* in it - one definition is that it must obey all known scientific laws, unless breaking one is required for the story, and then even the handwaving explantion must be reasonable.
Fantasy is *NOT* SF - the two are related, but not the same. However, as Lord Dunsay said, fantasy is *very* hard to do right: you have to make all the rules...and then *NEVER* break any of them, or the reader's suspenders of disbelief go "snap", and you've lost it.
X-Files was inconsistant conspiracy theory. This is about one step short of, say, Bush's energy policy, or his fight against accepting that global warming exists, and is human-caused - that is, the Hollywood idea that a "theory" is what you come up with in the nightmare after you've had too much bheer and pizza.
Non-space sf on tv? Max Headroom. Non-space fantasy on tv? The Chronicle.
None of the above? Cattlecar Galaxative (22 planets strafed to death, and a flamable covered wagon, er, spaceship in the hard vacuum of space).
mark "s'ppose a movie of Charles de Lint
would be too much to ask for"
Re:X-Files, "non-space SF"? (Score:2)
SF has *science* in it - one definition is that it must obey all known scientific laws, unless breaking one is required for the story, and then even the handwaving explantion must be reasonable.
That's a very restrictive definition of Science-fiction, and one which rules out one hell of a lot of literature and programming otherwise considered science-fiction. I can't think of any Sci-Fi which would qualify based on that definition.
A much better set of definitions includes:
A literary or cinematic genre
Re:X-Files, "non-space SF"? (Score:1)
Re:X-Files, "non-space SF"? (Score:2)
Re:X-Files, "non-space SF"? (Score:2)
We look at The Nine Billion Names of God whose only claim to "science" is the fact that a computer is used to print out words on paper. The story is entirely about the mix of eastern mysticism with weste
Re:X-Files, "non-space SF"? (Score:1)
People who think there's a hard line between sci-fi and fantasy need to glance at Pern. I, personally, don't think that's an example of good writing, but defining that as either sci-fi or fantasy is absurd. It's fantasy following sci-fi rules.
Or compare, say, Discworld and HHGttG. They've both saterical societies as a reflection on the real world. HHGttG has 'magic' in it, with improbablity fields floating around, ghosts, total perspective vortexes, etc, and Discworld has of technology hitting it
Some things may not be worth saving (Score:2)
Re:Some things may not be worth saving (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Some things may not be worth saving (Score:1, Insightful)
What about those of us starving for a... (Score:2)
hbo (Score:1)
Sound like "And God Spoke" (Score:2)
This sounds disturbingly like what happened in The Making of 'And God Spoke' [yahoo.com] -- a mockumentary about two eternally optimistic indie filmmakers shooting a cheesy biblical epic. "Very unusual!" they gloat, when the big studio drops the project but lets them keep it. As if this