From changing its name to losing 'Doctor Who': Syfy's biggest mistakes
TMC
1. Canceling Stargate Atlantis.
Stargate Atlantis ran concurrently with Stargate: SG-1 for its first
three years. So there was plenty of precedent for running two Stargate
shows concurrently. And Stargate Atlantis was still scoring pretty
solid ratings when Syfy decided to pull the plug on it and launch
Stargate Universe instead. Continuing Stargate Atlantis after the
launch of Stargate Universe might have kept fans of a lighter Stargate
happy, as well as signaling that the Stargate franchise was merely
growing, not changing direction. Thanks for this idea, Tom!
2. Making Flash Gordon non-space-bound.
This one still makes us scratch our heads. You get to do the rights of
one of space opera's most recognizable characters, who's famous for
flying around on rockets and battling against aliens in space — and
you never put him on a spaceship. Syfy's Flash Gordon reboot involved
Flash stepping through a portal to another world, Mongo, which managed
to be simultaneously ultra-campy and kind of dull. (We nicknamed the
show's villain Ming the Middle-Manager, for his aura of seeming fussy
and dyspeptic, rather than actually bad-ass.) They ditched the cool
part of Flash — the space adventure — in favor of all of the campy,
dated stuff.
3. Abandoning Friday nights as an action-adventure bloc.
Would Battlestar Galactica have maintained its rock-solid ratings if
Syfy had moved it to Tuesdays or Mondays — or would it have suffered
the same fate as Caprica and Stargate Universe? We'll never know. But
BSG had been steady on Friday nights since the beginning of its second
season. In fact, Friday night had become a reliable home for Syfy's
more action-oriented shows, and lately only Haven appears there,
alongside wrestling. (Which might do just as well on another night.)
4. Marcel's Quantum Kitchen
When word first leaked that Syfy was doing a cooking show, we mocked.
It seemed to be pushing Syfy's identity a little too far away from
science fiction — and outside their core competency. And indeed,
Marcel's Quantum Kitchen was a pretty dismal failure, winning just
330,000 viewers for its final episode. (Even if it is cheap to make.)
Syfy has carved out a niche in spooky reality TV like Ghost Hunters
and Destination Truth — shows that I personally will never watch — and
Marcel's Quantum Kitchen was just a few steps too far.
5. Making Caprica a Battlestar prequel instead of a standalone show
Producer Remi Aubuchon came to Universal with a pitch for a new show
about artificial intelligence, robots and the creation of life. And
the studio and/or Syfy encouraged Aubuchon to collaborate with Ronald
D. Moore and David Eick, to turn his idea into a Battlestar Galactica
prequel — instead of launching it as a new venture. In retrospect,
that was clearly a mistake. Everything that was great about Caprica
could have been great as a new show, but the show felt weighed down by
the need to connect up with what we already knew would happen later.
The show was caught in a chokehold of existing mythology from the
first episode — and it was clearly bursting with new ideas that we'd
have loved to see develop further.
6. Not picking up Firefly
Okay, so this one might have an element of wishful thinking. But
around the time that Firefly was getting axed by Fox, there was plenty
of clamor for the Sci-Fi Channel to make a bid to continue Joss
Whedon's masterpiece. There were certainly reports at the time that,
as a 2003 article from the Deseret News puts it, "Firefly was shopped
to other outlets (including the Sci-Fi Channel) but nobody bought it."
Maybe this was never a serious possibility. Maybe it was impossible,
for economic reasons. But the Sci-Fi Channel had picked up Stargate:
SG-1 from Showtime not long earlier.
7. Letting Doctor Who get away.
When Doctor Who came back to life in 2005, Syfy seemed to have mixed
feelings about it. Everybody expected Syfy to pick up the new show,
since after all the channel had launched with classic Doctor Who
repeats in heavy rotation — but Syfy dragged its feet for months, not
airing the Christopher Eccleston episodes until March 2006. The
channel frequently aired Doctor Who in first run with deep cuts to
episodes, and never seemed to have much urgency to air them soon after
their British airings. Finally, Syfy let the show go off to BBC
America, which has propelled it to new ratings heights by treating it
as a major event.
8. Not owning space opera
In the past decade, space opera on television has gone from half a
dozen shows to... none. The 2011 fall TV season in the U.S. won't
include any shows set in space or on a spaceship, on any channel. This
presents a huge opportunity to Syfy, to be the channel that gives you
what you can't get anywhere else. and here's where we mention Syfy's
mistake in cancelling Farscape, as well as the aforementioned mistakes
with Stargate Atlantis and keeping Flash Gordon grounded. Syfy can
reach out to a larger audience that doesn't want to see shows about
starships and pew-pew-pew — and still nurture the audience that seeks
those things out. Those are not contradictory goals.
9. The name change
Actually, this one is still up in the air, because Syfy's strategy
still hasn't played out. Part of the rationale behind creating a new
brand name was the ability to brand new associated Syfy ventures,
including Syfy Kids, Syfy Films and Syfy Games. So far, these ventures
appear to have generated very little heat — but it's early yet. Syfy
Films is supposed to have its first theatrical release in 2012 —
although shouldn't that already be in production at this point? In
other ways, though, we can judge the name change a failure. According
to Proud Creative (PDF), which worked on the brand campaign, the goal
was "retaining the positive associations from the genre of science
fiction, whilst appealing to a broader audience and embracing the
benefits of imagination." And the marketing campaign for Caprica, for
example, seemed to emphasize its appeal to that broader audience,
without much noticeable success. Also, as Wired's GeekDad blog pointed
out recently, Syfy's Mark Stern told io9 in 2009 that the name change
would allow Syfy to greenlight more hard science fiction, because
"hard scifi on the Sci-Fi Channel is almost like this double whammy.
Now that we have a brand that is a little broader ... it also gives us
a lot of freedom to do more hard scifi." (In the same interview, Stern
said the channel was looking at launching a new space opera in 2010 or
2011 — we're still waiting!) So if one goal of the name change was to
free up Syfy to do more hard science fiction, then it clearly hasn't
worked.
10. Canceling Eureka
And finally... this is what started us thinking about this topic.
Eureka wrapped production on its final ever episode yesterday. And
this still seems really arbitrary, for a show that was still going
strong after four seasons. It would be one thing if Eureka was pulling
in Stargate Universe numbers, but it's not. The most recent episode
drew 2.1 million viewers, compared with 2.3 million for Warehouse 13
and just 1.8 million for Alphas. As Geek Dad points out, this follows
a legacy of canceling Farscape and Dresden Files, both of which were
still enjoying decent ratings.
TMC
Raymond Daley
"TMC" <tmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:55a098b9-40a4-4f9b...@t20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
http://io9.com/5836461/10-actual-mistakes-that-syfy-has-made-over-the-years
7. Letting Doctor Who get away.
Syfy let the show go off to BBC America
Guess again?
BBC America were ALWAYS going to have first US broadcast rights to Doctor
Who.
So its hardly a mistake made by SyFy.
But thanks for playing.
Duggy
> http://io9.com/5836461/10-actual-mistakes-that-syfy-has-made-over-the...
> 1. Canceling Stargate Atlantis.
> Stargate Atlantis ran concurrently with Stargate: SG-1 for its first
> three years. So there was plenty of precedent for running two Stargate
> shows concurrently. And Stargate Atlantis was still scoring pretty
> solid ratings when Syfy decided to pull the plug on it and launch
> Stargate Universe instead. Continuing Stargate Atlantis after the
> launch of Stargate Universe might have kept fans of a lighter Stargate
> happy, as well as signaling that the Stargate franchise was merely
> growing, not changing direction. Thanks for this idea, Tom!
Fair enough.
> 2. Making Flash Gordon non-space-bound.
> This one still makes us scratch our heads. You get to do the rights of
> one of space opera's most recognizable characters, who's famous for
> flying around on rockets and battling against aliens in space — and
> you never put him on a spaceship. Syfy's Flash Gordon reboot involved
> Flash stepping through a portal to another world, Mongo, which managed
> to be simultaneously ultra-campy and kind of dull. (We nicknamed the
> show's villain Ming the Middle-Manager, for his aura of seeming fussy
> and dyspeptic, rather than actually bad-ass.) They ditched the cool
> part of Flash — the space adventure — in favor of all of the campy,
> dated stuff.
Flash Gordon was always pretty Mongo-bound. Making it Earthbound was
a stupid move, though.
> 5. Making Caprica a Battlestar prequel instead of a standalone show
> Producer Remi Aubuchon came to Universal with a pitch for a new show
> about artificial intelligence, robots and the creation of life. And
> the studio and/or Syfy encouraged Aubuchon to collaborate with Ronald
> D. Moore and David Eick, to turn his idea into a Battlestar Galactica
> prequel — instead of launching it as a new venture. In retrospect,
> that was clearly a mistake. Everything that was great about Caprica
> could have been great as a new show, but the show felt weighed down by
> the need to connect up with what we already knew would happen later.
> The show was caught in a chokehold of existing mythology from the
> first episode — and it was clearly bursting with new ideas that we'd
> have loved to see develop further.
Ronald Moore want to do a space show... it didn't sell. Sci-Fi pushed
him to do BSG which had just lost it's showrunner. He turned it into
his other show.
Ronald Moore wanted to do a BSG prequel, they wanted to make a prequel
with Moore. If Remi's show hadn't been folded in to Caprica we would
have only had Caprica not Remi's show.
> 6. Not picking up Firefly
> Okay, so this one might have an element of wishful thinking.
So did the last one.
> 7. Letting Doctor Who get away.
They had a choice?
> 8. Not owning space opera
> In the past decade, space opera on television has gone from half a
> dozen shows to... none.
It seems to be a deliberate plan to get expand beyond the SF geek
audience. Bad idea.
> Those are not contradictory goals.
Sometimes can to be.
> 9. The name change
See #8.
> 10. Canceling Eureka
They're the one spending the money. You want it, you pay for it.
===
= DUG.
===
Agamemnon
It's a complete joke as is it's name change.
<<<
"TMC" <tmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:55a098b9-40a4-4f9b...@t20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
AC
> http://io9.com/5836461/10-actual-mistakes-that-syfy-has-made-over-the-years
>
> 1. Canceling Stargate Atlantis.
> Stargate Atlantis ran concurrently with Stargate: SG-1 for its first
> three years. So there was plenty of precedent for running two Stargate
> shows concurrently. And Stargate Atlantis was still scoring pretty
> solid ratings when Syfy decided to pull the plug on it and launch
> Stargate Universe instead. Continuing Stargate Atlantis after the
> launch of Stargate Universe might have kept fans of a lighter Stargate
> happy, as well as signaling that the Stargate franchise was merely
> growing, not changing direction. Thanks for this idea, Tom!
SGU looked expensive, I imagine they could not afford both. At the time,
it made sense to do a "BSG" type show. Problem is, they did all the
style, but cocked up the arc plotting. Remember, it was sold as an arc
show.
SGA was just too lite and not much different from SG1. In some ways,
they whould have not bothered with SGA and refreshed SG1.
>
> 2. Making Flash Gordon non-space-bound.
> This one still makes us scratch our heads. You get to do the rights of
> one of space opera's most recognizable characters, who's famous for
> flying around on rockets and battling against aliens in space — and
> you never put him on a spaceship. Syfy's Flash Gordon reboot involved
> Flash stepping through a portal to another world, Mongo, which managed
> to be simultaneously ultra-campy and kind of dull. (We nicknamed the
> show's villain Ming the Middle-Manager, for his aura of seeming fussy
> and dyspeptic, rather than actually bad-ass.) They ditched the cool
> part of Flash — the space adventure — in favor of all of the campy,
> dated stuff.
I liked Flash. No, not great but good enough. Two problems: 1, all I
could think of was "where the damn Queen music", and 2, often it looked
like its was shot in a back yard by students.
I really dont know what happened to Caprica. On paper its was the
perfect "AC" show. I watched 4-5 episodes and it bored me senseless.
>
> 6. Not picking up Firefly
> Okay, so this one might have an element of wishful thinking. But
> around the time that Firefly was getting axed by Fox, there was plenty
> of clamor for the Sci-Fi Channel to make a bid to continue Joss
> Whedon's masterpiece. There were certainly reports at the time that,
> as a 2003 article from the Deseret News puts it, "Firefly was shopped
> to other outlets (including the Sci-Fi Channel) but nobody bought it."
> Maybe this was never a serious possibility. Maybe it was impossible,
> for economic reasons. But the Sci-Fi Channel had picked up Stargate:
> SG-1 from Showtime not long earlier.
I agree, but that's no more than a fan wank.
>
> 7. Letting Doctor Who get away.
> When Doctor Who came back to life in 2005, Syfy seemed to have mixed
> feelings about it. Everybody expected Syfy to pick up the new show,
> since after all the channel had launched with classic Doctor Who
> repeats in heavy rotation — but Syfy dragged its feet for months, not
> airing the Christopher Eccleston episodes until March 2006. The
> channel frequently aired Doctor Who in first run with deep cuts to
> episodes, and never seemed to have much urgency to air them soon after
> their British airings. Finally, Syfy let the show go off to BBC
> America, which has propelled it to new ratings heights by treating it
> as a major event.
As a Brit I just assume DW is great and everyone on the planet who
doesn't like it should be shot. But really? That popular in the US?
>
> 8. Not owning space opera
> In the past decade, space opera on television has gone from half a
> dozen shows to... none. The 2011 fall TV season in the U.S. won't
> include any shows set in space or on a spaceship, on any channel. This
> presents a huge opportunity to Syfy, to be the channel that gives you
> what you can't get anywhere else. and here's where we mention Syfy's
> mistake in cancelling Farscape, as well as the aforementioned mistakes
> with Stargate Atlantis and keeping Flash Gordon grounded. Syfy can
> reach out to a larger audience that doesn't want to see shows about
> starships and pew-pew-pew — and still nurture the audience that seeks
> those things out. Those are not contradictory goals.
I cant disagree there. I adore proper space opera, but AFAIAC, there has
only really been one, Babylon 5. The others were funky and spacey, and
good junk food as it were, but not proper space opera at all. So, I'm
not sure the channel can "own" something that hasn't really existed or
proved massively popular.
>
> 9. The name change
> Actually, this one is still up in the air, because Syfy's strategy
> still hasn't played out. Part of the rationale behind creating a new
> brand name was the ability to brand new associated Syfy ventures,
> including Syfy Kids, Syfy Films and Syfy Games. So far, these ventures
> appear to have generated very little heat — but it's early yet. Syfy
> Films is supposed to have its first theatrical release in 2012 —
> although shouldn't that already be in production at this point? In
> other ways, though, we can judge the name change a failure. According
> to Proud Creative (PDF), which worked on the brand campaign, the goal
> was "retaining the positive associations from the genre of science
> fiction, whilst appealing to a broader audience and embracing the
> benefits of imagination." And the marketing campaign for Caprica, for
> example, seemed to emphasize its appeal to that broader audience,
> without much noticeable success. Also, as Wired's GeekDad blog pointed
> out recently, Syfy's Mark Stern told io9 in 2009 that the name change
> would allow Syfy to greenlight more hard science fiction, because
> "hard scifi on the Sci-Fi Channel is almost like this double whammy.
> Now that we have a brand that is a little broader ... it also gives us
> a lot of freedom to do more hard scifi." (In the same interview, Stern
> said the channel was looking at launching a new space opera in 2010 or
> 2011 — we're still waiting!) So if one goal of the name change was to
> free up Syfy to do more hard science fiction, then it clearly hasn't
> worked.
Interesting ideas there. Lets hope it works out.
Given all that, how is it entered as a mistake by the channel?
>
> 10. Canceling Eureka
> And finally... this is what started us thinking about this topic.
> Eureka wrapped production on its final ever episode yesterday. And
> this still seems really arbitrary, for a show that was still going
> strong after four seasons. It would be one thing if Eureka was pulling
> in Stargate Universe numbers, but it's not. The most recent episode
> drew 2.1 million viewers, compared with 2.3 million for Warehouse 13
> and just 1.8 million for Alphas. As Geek Dad points out, this follows
> a legacy of canceling Farscape and Dresden Files, both of which were
> still enjoying decent ratings.
IMHO, Eureka got tired a while ago. I used to quite like it but really,
its just pap. Also, it turns out Warehouse 13 is a spin off, so what
good about Eureka could well turn up there. I wonder if the idea is to
use the money better else where.
--
AC
Zeb Carter
> http://io9.com/5836461/10-actual-mistakes-that-syfy-has-made-over-the-years
>
> 1. Canceling Stargate Atlantis.
> Stargate Atlantis ran concurrently with Stargate: SG-1 for its first
> three years. So there was plenty of precedent for running two Stargate
> shows concurrently. And Stargate Atlantis was still scoring pretty
> solid ratings when Syfy decided to pull the plug on it and launch
> Stargate Universe instead. Continuing Stargate Atlantis after the
> launch of Stargate Universe might have kept fans of a lighter Stargate
> happy, as well as signaling that the Stargate franchise was merely
> growing, not changing direction. Thanks for this idea, Tom!
I enjoyed SGU for its darker tone. Sure, it was BSGesque in its approach
with the personality conflicts among the different crew memembers but it
worked.
I would have liked to have seen a resolution to the last storyline in
SGA and seeing Atlantis get back to the Pegasus Galaxy. But that's what
direct to DVD movie are for - at least that worked for SG1. So where's
our SGA and SGU movies?
On a side note, David Blue "Eli" & Louis Ferreira "Young" & Julie
McNiven "Gynn" & Patrick Gilmore "Dr Volker" are at Dragon Con this
weekend. Maybe some info will come from them from behind the scenes.
>
> 2. Making Flash Gordon non-space-bound.
> This one still makes us scratch our heads. You get to do the rights of
> one of space opera's most recognizable characters, who's famous for
> flying around on rockets and battling against aliens in space — and
> you never put him on a spaceship. Syfy's Flash Gordon reboot involved
> Flash stepping through a portal to another world, Mongo, which managed
> to be simultaneously ultra-campy and kind of dull. (We nicknamed the
> show's villain Ming the Middle-Manager, for his aura of seeming fussy
> and dyspeptic, rather than actually bad-ass.) They ditched the cool
> part of Flash — the space adventure — in favor of all of the campy,
> dated stuff.
Not enough space ships or futuristic weapons. And the show was all about
who controlled the water????
>
> 3. Abandoning Friday nights as an action-adventure bloc.
> Would Battlestar Galactica have maintained its rock-solid ratings if
> Syfy had moved it to Tuesdays or Mondays — or would it have suffered
> the same fate as Caprica and Stargate Universe? We'll never know. But
> BSG had been steady on Friday nights since the beginning of its second
> season. In fact, Friday night had become a reliable home for Syfy's
> more action-oriented shows, and lately only Haven appears there,
> alongside wrestling. (Which might do just as well on another night.)
After SyFy gutted the lineup, what action shows? At least Monday nights
has somethings going for it. But once Monday night football hits, say
goodbye to ratings for what remains.
>
> 4. Marcel's Quantum Kitchen
> When word first leaked that Syfy was doing a cooking show, we mocked.
> It seemed to be pushing Syfy's identity a little too far away from
> science fiction — and outside their core competency. And indeed,
> Marcel's Quantum Kitchen was a pretty dismal failure, winning just
> 330,000 viewers for its final episode. (Even if it is cheap to make.)
> Syfy has carved out a niche in spooky reality TV like Ghost Hunters
> and Destination Truth — shows that I personally will never watch — and
> Marcel's Quantum Kitchen was just a few steps too far.
>
> 5. Making Caprica a Battlestar prequel instead of a standalone show
> Producer Remi Aubuchon came to Universal with a pitch for a new show
> about artificial intelligence, robots and the creation of life. And
> the studio and/or Syfy encouraged Aubuchon to collaborate with Ronald
> D. Moore and David Eick, to turn his idea into a Battlestar Galactica
> prequel — instead of launching it as a new venture. In retrospect,
> that was clearly a mistake. Everything that was great about Caprica
> could have been great as a new show, but the show felt weighed down by
> the need to connect up with what we already knew would happen later.
> The show was caught in a chokehold of existing mythology from the
> first episode — and it was clearly bursting with new ideas that we'd
> have loved to see develop further.
>
Caprica was good in theory, highly flawed in execution. For me, the
beginning of Caprica should have been about 30 years further back. What
I saw of it, Going from holographic avatars to cybernetic bodies was
just too quick.
> 6. Not picking up Firefly
> Okay, so this one might have an element of wishful thinking. But
> around the time that Firefly was getting axed by Fox, there was plenty
> of clamor for the Sci-Fi Channel to make a bid to continue Joss
> Whedon's masterpiece. There were certainly reports at the time that,
> as a 2003 article from the Deseret News puts it, "Firefly was shopped
> to other outlets (including the Sci-Fi Channel) but nobody bought it."
> Maybe this was never a serious possibility. Maybe it was impossible,
> for economic reasons. But the Sci-Fi Channel had picked up Stargate:
> SG-1 from Showtime not long earlier.
Consider the history of the end of Farscape and the creation of new SG-1
episodes from the standpoint of Harry Potter and Voldemort - " ...either
must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other
survives...".
>
> 7. Letting Doctor Who get away.
> When Doctor Who came back to life in 2005, Syfy seemed to have mixed
> feelings about it. Everybody expected Syfy to pick up the new show,
> since after all the channel had launched with classic Doctor Who
> repeats in heavy rotation — but Syfy dragged its feet for months, not
> airing the Christopher Eccleston episodes until March 2006. The
> channel frequently aired Doctor Who in first run with deep cuts to
> episodes, and never seemed to have much urgency to air them soon after
> their British airings. Finally, Syfy let the show go off to BBC
> America, which has propelled it to new ratings heights by treating it
> as a major event.
>
Sci Fi Channel had the rights to so many classic shows. It was their
signature.
Now that Eureka and Warehouse 13 have been shown to be in the same
universe (at least post new timeline in Eureka), maybe we'll see more
guest appearances of the E-crew on WH-13 ala Fargo.
For me, the bottom line of when all this started happening was when
Bonnie Hammer and others under her started taking things apart and
ordering "reality" shows. Now that Comcast has bought NBC/SyFy/USA,
maybe the fans need to appeal to the Comcast board of directors and send
a copy of this article to each and every one of the members of the board.
Dano
2 or 3 in the a.m. with no promotion?
Never got that at all either. What a waste.
The Doctor
TMC <tmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>http://io9.com/5836461/10-actual-mistakes-that-syfy-has-made-over-the-years
>
>1. Canceling Stargate Atlantis.
>Stargate Atlantis ran concurrently with Stargate: SG-1 for its first
>three years. So there was plenty of precedent for running two Stargate
>shows concurrently. And Stargate Atlantis was still scoring pretty
>solid ratings when Syfy decided to pull the plug on it and launch
>Stargate Universe instead. Continuing Stargate Atlantis after the
>launch of Stargate Universe might have kept fans of a lighter Stargate
>happy, as well as signaling that the Stargate franchise was merely
>growing, not changing direction. Thanks for this idea, Tom!
>
>2. Making Flash Gordon non-space-bound.
>This one still makes us scratch our heads. You get to do the rights of
>one of space opera's most recognizable characters, who's famous for
>you never put him on a spaceship. Syfy's Flash Gordon reboot involved
>Flash stepping through a portal to another world, Mongo, which managed
>to be simultaneously ultra-campy and kind of dull. (We nicknamed the
>show's villain Ming the Middle-Manager, for his aura of seeming fussy
>and dyspeptic, rather than actually bad-ass.) They ditched the cool
>dated stuff.
>
>3. Abandoning Friday nights as an action-adventure bloc.
>Would Battlestar Galactica have maintained its rock-solid ratings if
>the same fate as Caprica and Stargate Universe? We'll never know. But
>BSG had been steady on Friday nights since the beginning of its second
>season. In fact, Friday night had become a reliable home for Syfy's
>more action-oriented shows, and lately only Haven appears there,
>alongside wrestling. (Which might do just as well on another night.)
>
>4. Marcel's Quantum Kitchen
>When word first leaked that Syfy was doing a cooking show, we mocked.
>It seemed to be pushing Syfy's identity a little too far away from
>Marcel's Quantum Kitchen was a pretty dismal failure, winning just
>330,000 viewers for its final episode. (Even if it is cheap to make.)
>Syfy has carved out a niche in spooky reality TV like Ghost Hunters
>Marcel's Quantum Kitchen was just a few steps too far.
>
>5. Making Caprica a Battlestar prequel instead of a standalone show
>Producer Remi Aubuchon came to Universal with a pitch for a new show
>about artificial intelligence, robots and the creation of life. And
>the studio and/or Syfy encouraged Aubuchon to collaborate with Ronald
>D. Moore and David Eick, to turn his idea into a Battlestar Galactica
>that was clearly a mistake. Everything that was great about Caprica
>could have been great as a new show, but the show felt weighed down by
>the need to connect up with what we already knew would happen later.
>The show was caught in a chokehold of existing mythology from the
>have loved to see develop further.
>
>6. Not picking up Firefly
>Okay, so this one might have an element of wishful thinking. But
>around the time that Firefly was getting axed by Fox, there was plenty
>of clamor for the Sci-Fi Channel to make a bid to continue Joss
>Whedon's masterpiece. There were certainly reports at the time that,
>as a 2003 article from the Deseret News puts it, "Firefly was shopped
>to other outlets (including the Sci-Fi Channel) but nobody bought it."
>Maybe this was never a serious possibility. Maybe it was impossible,
>for economic reasons. But the Sci-Fi Channel had picked up Stargate:
>SG-1 from Showtime not long earlier.
>
>7. Letting Doctor Who get away.
>When Doctor Who came back to life in 2005, Syfy seemed to have mixed
>feelings about it. Everybody expected Syfy to pick up the new show,
>since after all the channel had launched with classic Doctor Who
>airing the Christopher Eccleston episodes until March 2006. The
>channel frequently aired Doctor Who in first run with deep cuts to
>episodes, and never seemed to have much urgency to air them soon after
>their British airings. Finally, Syfy let the show go off to BBC
>America, which has propelled it to new ratings heights by treating it
>as a major event.
>
>8. Not owning space opera
>In the past decade, space opera on television has gone from half a
>dozen shows to... none. The 2011 fall TV season in the U.S. won't
>include any shows set in space or on a spaceship, on any channel. This
>presents a huge opportunity to Syfy, to be the channel that gives you
>what you can't get anywhere else. and here's where we mention Syfy's
>mistake in cancelling Farscape, as well as the aforementioned mistakes
>with Stargate Atlantis and keeping Flash Gordon grounded. Syfy can
>reach out to a larger audience that doesn't want to see shows about
>those things out. Those are not contradictory goals.
>
>9. The name change
>Actually, this one is still up in the air, because Syfy's strategy
>still hasn't played out. Part of the rationale behind creating a new
>brand name was the ability to brand new associated Syfy ventures,
>including Syfy Kids, Syfy Films and Syfy Games. So far, these ventures
>Films is supposed to have its first theatrical release in 2012 =97
>although shouldn't that already be in production at this point? In
>other ways, though, we can judge the name change a failure. According
>to Proud Creative (PDF), which worked on the brand campaign, the goal
>was "retaining the positive associations from the genre of science
>fiction, whilst appealing to a broader audience and embracing the
>benefits of imagination." And the marketing campaign for Caprica, for
>example, seemed to emphasize its appeal to that broader audience,
>without much noticeable success. Also, as Wired's GeekDad blog pointed
>out recently, Syfy's Mark Stern told io9 in 2009 that the name change
>would allow Syfy to greenlight more hard science fiction, because
>"hard scifi on the Sci-Fi Channel is almost like this double whammy.
>Now that we have a brand that is a little broader ... it also gives us
>a lot of freedom to do more hard scifi." (In the same interview, Stern
>said the channel was looking at launching a new space opera in 2010 or
>free up Syfy to do more hard science fiction, then it clearly hasn't
>worked.
>
>10. Canceling Eureka
>And finally... this is what started us thinking about this topic.
>Eureka wrapped production on its final ever episode yesterday. And
>this still seems really arbitrary, for a show that was still going
>strong after four seasons. It would be one thing if Eureka was pulling
>in Stargate Universe numbers, but it's not. The most recent episode
>drew 2.1 million viewers, compared with 2.3 million for Warehouse 13
>and just 1.8 million for Alphas. As Geek Dad points out, this follows
>a legacy of canceling Farscape and Dresden Files, both of which were
>still enjoying decent ratings.
I wonder if BBC wants to pick up all of the above.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k
IT is done! http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.drwho/about
David Johnston
> 2. Making Flash Gordon non-space-bound.
> This one still makes us scratch our heads. You get to do the rights of
> one of space opera's most recognizable characters, who's famous for
> flying around on rockets and battling against aliens in space — and
> you never put him on a spaceship.
Flash Gordon battled aliens in spaceships? News to me. Buck Rogers did
a lot of spaceship stuff, but Flash was restricted to Mongo.
Orval Fairbairn
"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> What about showing professional wrestling?
Well, they got the "fiction" part right.
Dano
news:orfairbairn-187A...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...
=============================
They got the <sigh> part right in that case too...
Arthur Lipscomb
> TMC wrote:
>> http://io9.com/5836461/10-actual-mistakes-that-syfy-has-made-over-the-years
>>
>>
>> 1. Canceling Stargate Atlantis.
>> Stargate Atlantis ran concurrently with Stargate: SG-1 for its first
>> three years. So there was plenty of precedent for running two Stargate
>> shows concurrently. And Stargate Atlantis was still scoring pretty
>> solid ratings when Syfy decided to pull the plug on it and launch
>> Stargate Universe instead. Continuing Stargate Atlantis after the
>> launch of Stargate Universe might have kept fans of a lighter Stargate
>> happy, as well as signaling that the Stargate franchise was merely
>> growing, not changing direction. Thanks for this idea, Tom!
>
> I enjoyed SGU for its darker tone. Sure, it was BSGesque in its approach
> with the personality conflicts among the different crew memembers but it
> worked.
Agreed. But the overall quality seemed to fluctuate wildly at times.
>
> I would have liked to have seen a resolution to the last storyline in
> SGA and seeing Atlantis get back to the Pegasus Galaxy. But that's what
> direct to DVD movie are for - at least that worked for SG1. So where's
> our SGA and SGU movies?
>
> On a side note, David Blue "Eli" & Louis Ferreira "Young" & Julie
> McNiven "Gynn" & Patrick Gilmore "Dr Volker" are at Dragon Con this
> weekend. Maybe some info will come from them from behind the scenes.
>
>>
>> 2. Making Flash Gordon non-space-bound.
>> This one still makes us scratch our heads. You get to do the rights of
>> one of space opera's most recognizable characters, who's famous for
>> flying around on rockets and battling against aliens in space — and
>> you never put him on a spaceship. Syfy's Flash Gordon reboot involved
>> Flash stepping through a portal to another world, Mongo, which managed
>> to be simultaneously ultra-campy and kind of dull. (We nicknamed the
>> show's villain Ming the Middle-Manager, for his aura of seeming fussy
>> and dyspeptic, rather than actually bad-ass.) They ditched the cool
>> part of Flash — the space adventure — in favor of all of the campy,
>> dated stuff.
>
> Not enough space ships or futuristic weapons. And the show was all about
> who controlled the water????
Don't forget the featherless Hawkmen.
catpandaddy
"Zeb Carter" <zeb_c...@ymail.com> wrote in message
news:O168q.3864$GV2....@newsfe20.iad...
Comcast can't even fix the episode synopsis problems in their onscreen
schedule. They have the entire first series of Matt Smith and Karen
Gillan's starring roles in "Dr Who" billed as "Matt Smith and Billie
Piper" -- they have never appeared together. And there are shows on other
stations where they have some permanent mixups... airing an episode from
Season 1 and displaying the title and synopsis for a completely different
episode in Season 7 for example.
The Doctor
Duggy
> I would have liked to have seen a resolution to the last storyline in
> SGA and seeing Atlantis get back to the Pegasus Galaxy. But that's what
> direct to DVD movie are for - at least that worked for SG1. So where's
> our SGA and SGU movies?
The failure of SGU lead to the cancellation of SGA movie plans.
===
= DUG.
===
Zeb Carter
figures for the 2 SG-1 direct to DVD movies. And maybe sales figures for
the DVD sets for the 3 shows.
On another note, has anyone had problems finding the complete first
season of SGU? The local Best buy and FYE haven't had them in stock. My
wife got SGU:S2 but couldn't find SGU:S1.
Arthur Lipscomb
Didn't he get to Mongo in a spaceship? My knowledge of the character is
a bit limited but I always considered spaceships and space battles to be
part of Flash Gordon. The TV version changed it from battling aliens on
another planet to battling featherless hawk people in another dimension.
Lloyd E Parsons
Yep, both Flash Gordon the movie, and Flesh Gordon the bit racier
version, showed Flash traveling by spaceship.
--
Lloyd
T987654321
Your Name
No idea about the silly Flesh Gordon, but in most versions of Flash
Gordon, once he got to Mongo he coudln't get back for one reason or
another and was basically stuck on the planet battling against Ming and
others (in some versions there are "spaceship" battles above the planet,
either in space or in the air). In the original version the rocketship is
moved along highly visible wires. :)
There have been hawkmen in different versions of Flash Gordon (as well as
two turning up in TV's second season of Buck Rogers). They start off as
Flash Gordon's enemies, but later join him to fight Ming.
Jerry Heyman
> A1: Stoped being a SciFi channel!!!
Which was the intent of the rebranding. The highest rated show on the
network is the wrestling!
I've been disappointed ever since they cancelled "The Dresden Files".
I will admit, the series did bring the books to my attention, and I've
become a big fan of the books AND the short lived series.
jerry
--
// Jerry Heyman |
// Amiga Forever :-) | "Irony is asking the government
\\ // heymanj at acm dot org | to fix problems it caused."
\X/ http://www.hobbeshollow.com |
David Johnston
> On 9/2/2011 8:51 AM, David Johnston wrote:
>> On 9/2/2011 2:07 AM, TMC wrote:
>>
>>> 2. Making Flash Gordon non-space-bound.
>>> This one still makes us scratch our heads. You get to do the rights of
>>> one of space opera's most recognizable characters, who's famous for
>>> flying around on rockets and battling against aliens in space — and
>>> you never put him on a spaceship.
>>
>> Flash Gordon battled aliens in spaceships? News to me. Buck Rogers did a
>> lot of spaceship stuff, but Flash was restricted to Mongo.
>>
>
> Didn't he get to Mongo in a spaceship?
He did, but but he didn't fight in space. He just crashed and was
stranded there forever more.
Duggy
> I'm afraid you're right Duggy. But I would love to see some sales
> figures for the 2 SG-1 direct to DVD movies. And maybe sales figures for
> the DVD sets for the 3 shows.
With an ongoing TV show you have sets and production crews in place.
Not the exact sets, but you know what I mean. It's cheaper to do an
SG movie while you're doing different SG series. So sales figures for
SG-1 DVD may have been good enough for while SG-A was in production.
It may not be worth making one now.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
wrote:
> Didn't he get to Mongo in a spaceship?
Flash Gordon was planetary romance... the interest and action is on
the planet meeting and fighting new species not space opera when it's
about space ships fighting.
> The TV version changed it from battling aliens on
> another planet to battling featherless hawk people in another dimension.
There's no denying that the TV show took away everything interesting
about it.
Lower the ages about 5 years and it could have been one of hundreds of
"kids secretly protecting the Earth against the aliens/rift people"
shows.
===
= DUG.
===
Tim McGaughy
As did the old Flash Gordon comic strip/
Zeb Carter
Which can still be found here: http://www.comicskingdom.com/ which will
lead you here http://newsok.com/entertainment/comics
RT
Charlie who? Looked it up. eh
RT
Yes, to anyone who has been acquainted with the character.
RT
>
> On 9/2/2011 8:51 AM, David Johnston wrote:
> > On 9/2/2011 2:07 AM, TMC wrote:
> >
> >> 2. Making Flash Gordon non-space-bound.
> >> This one still makes us scratch our heads. You get to do the rights of
> >> one of space opera's most recognizable characters, who's famous for
> >> flying around on rockets and battling against aliens in space — and
> >> you never put him on a spaceship.
> >
> > Flash Gordon battled aliens in spaceships? News to me. Buck Rogers did a
> > lot of spaceship stuff, but Flash was restricted to Mongo.
> >
>
> Didn't he get to Mongo in a spaceship? My knowledge of the character is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_Gordon
RT
The source material is the comic strip and they did get back to Earth. But
returned to Mongo.
Dano
===================================
Well worth checking out if you ever get the chance. One of the better
efforts ever for a TV sci-fi series. I liked this one season nearly as much
as Firefly.
RT
>
> TMC wrote:
> > http://io9.com/5836461/10-actual-mistakes-that-syfy-has-made-over-the-years
> >
> > 1. Canceling Stargate Atlantis.
> > Stargate Atlantis ran concurrently with Stargate: SG-1 for its first
> > three years. So there was plenty of precedent for running two Stargate
> > shows concurrently. And Stargate Atlantis was still scoring pretty
> > solid ratings when Syfy decided to pull the plug on it and launch
> > Stargate Universe instead. Continuing Stargate Atlantis after the
> > launch of Stargate Universe might have kept fans of a lighter Stargate
> > happy, as well as signaling that the Stargate franchise was merely
> > growing, not changing direction. Thanks for this idea, Tom!
>
> it made sense to do a "BSG" type show. Problem is, they did all the
> style, but cocked up the arc plotting. Remember, it was sold as an arc
> show.
>
> SGA was just too lite and not much different from SG1. In some ways,
> they whould have not bothered with SGA and refreshed SG1.
>
> >
> > 2. Making Flash Gordon non-space-bound.
> > This one still makes us scratch our heads. You get to do the rights of
> > one of space opera's most recognizable characters, who's famous for
> > flying around on rockets and battling against aliens in space — and
> > Flash stepping through a portal to another world, Mongo, which managed
> > to be simultaneously ultra-campy and kind of dull. (We nicknamed the
> > show's villain Ming the Middle-Manager, for his aura of seeming fussy
> > and dyspeptic, rather than actually bad-ass.) They ditched the cool
> > part of Flash — the space adventure — in favor of all of the campy,
> > dated stuff.
>
> could think of was "where the damn Queen music", and 2, often it looked
> like its was shot in a back yard by students.
Argh. It was cheap crap. One episode was enough to confirm it would be
cheap from start to finish.
> > 7. Letting Doctor Who get away.
> > When Doctor Who came back to life in 2005, Syfy seemed to have mixed
> > feelings about it. Everybody expected Syfy to pick up the new show,
> > since after all the channel had launched with classic Doctor Who
> > repeats in heavy rotation — but Syfy dragged its feet for months, not
> > airing the Christopher Eccleston episodes until March 2006. The
> > channel frequently aired Doctor Who in first run with deep cuts to
> > episodes, and never seemed to have much urgency to air them soon after
> > their British airings. Finally, Syfy let the show go off to BBC
> > America, which has propelled it to new ratings heights by treating it
> > as a major event.
>
> As a Brit I just assume DW is great and everyone on the planet who
> doesn't like it should be shot. But really? That popular in the US?
Yes. Really. For years. And the ones who don't like *should* be shot, but
only after water boarding, electrocution, dismemberment, etc. And then go to
work on them.
> > 8. Not owning space opera
> > In the past decade, space opera on television has gone from half a
> > dozen shows to... none. The 2011 fall TV season in the U.S. won't
> > include any shows set in space or on a spaceship, on any channel. This
> > presents a huge opportunity to Syfy, to be the channel that gives you
> > what you can't get anywhere else. and here's where we mention Syfy's
> > mistake in cancelling Farscape, as well as the aforementioned mistakes
> > with Stargate Atlantis and keeping Flash Gordon grounded. Syfy can
> > reach out to a larger audience that doesn't want to see shows about
> > starships and pew-pew-pew — and still nurture the audience that seeks
> > those things out. Those are not contradictory goals.
>
> I cant disagree there. I adore proper space opera, but AFAIAC, there has
> only really been one, Babylon 5. The others were funky and spacey, and
> good junk food as it were, but not proper space opera at all. So, I'm
> not sure the channel can "own" something that hasn't really existed or
> proved massively popular.
Ah, B5... how you are missed.
catpandaddy
"RT" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4E63ABDA...@hotmMOVEail.com...
> Your Name wrote:
>>
>> In article <j3rqk1$q9q$1...@dont-email.me>, Lloyd E Parsons
>> <lloydp...@mac.com> wrote:
>> > On 9/2/11 6:02 PM, Arthur Lipscomb wrote:
>> > > On 9/2/2011 8:51 AM, David Johnston wrote:
>> > >> On 9/2/2011 2:07 AM, TMC wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> 2. Making Flash Gordon non-space-bound.
>> > >>> This one still makes us scratch our heads. You get to do the rights
>> > >>> of
>> > >>> one of space opera's most recognizable characters, who's famous for
So many re-imaginings of Flash Gordon over the years... almost makes BSG's
one reboot seem like not such a big deal.
spi...@freenet.co.uk
>
>> 2. Making Flash Gordon non-space-bound.
>> This one still makes us scratch our heads. You get to do the rights of
>> one of space opera's most recognizable characters, who's famous for
>
> Flash Gordon battled aliens in spaceships? News to me. Buck Rogers did
> a lot of spaceship stuff, but Flash was restricted to Mongo.
>
In dr zarkov's rocket ship. There was a lot of corny flying around shooting
sparklers at each other in flash gordon. (the original buster crabbe
version)
--
| |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack|
| spi...@freenet.co.uk |in the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you|
| |can't move, with no hope of rescue. |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc |Consider how lucky you are that life has been |
| in |good to you so far... |
| Computer Science | -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy.|
catpandaddy
<spi...@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:biqrj8-...@librarian.sky.com...
>> On 9/2/2011 2:07 AM, TMC wrote:
>>
>>> 2. Making Flash Gordon non-space-bound.
>>> This one still makes us scratch our heads. You get to do the rights of
>>> one of space opera's most recognizable characters, who's famous for
>>> flying around on rockets and battling against aliens in space ??? and
>>> you never put him on a spaceship.
>>
>> Flash Gordon battled aliens in spaceships? News to me. Buck Rogers did
>> a lot of spaceship stuff, but Flash was restricted to Mongo.
>>
>
> Errrr... How do you think he got to mongo in the first place?
> In dr zarkov's rocket ship. There was a lot of corny flying around
> shooting
> sparklers at each other in flash gordon. (the original buster crabbe
> version)
unimaginative tv execs with no original ideas?
catpandaddy
"catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote in message
news:j4fmd4$dp1$1...@dont-email.me...
Zeb Carter
probably fall into that category. The theatrical release of the movie
was good but the series went downhill after season 1.
gera...@earthlink.net
inexplicable. So many great old sci-fi shows that they've never run
even once. Others they've run once or twice but not enough. But the
Dr. Who lapse is ridiculous.
I think BBC could be talked into licensing the old Dr. Who shows to
SyFy on a non-exclusive basis. After all, BBC America is in so few
markets at all, and even in those few you have to order the premium
package to get it. Not as if SyFy would be competing with a station
hardly anyone gets.
Don't know why, I guess I was feeling brain dead that day, but I
recently watched a movie about giant crocodiles devouring people on an
island. A crocodile fancier on the island had been feeding the crocs
meat from cows that had been fed on growth hormone, and the crocs she
fed grew to the size of dinosaurs. Acting abominable, dialog
abominable, premise absurd. Will some agency please yank SyFy's
license and give it to someone with an interest in Science Fiction!!!
Nicole Massey
"Zeb Carter" <zeb_c...@ymail.com> wrote in message
news:O5Kaq.13534$zx2....@newsfe08.iad...
time they brushed against Ms. Gray they got splinters.
catpandaddy
"Nicole Massey" <ny...@gypsyheir.com> wrote in message
news:j4g3id$han$1...@news.albasani.net...
special effects models.
Fred Ellis
might not have known. She was once a member of a nudist colony back in
the late '50s, early '60s. There're photos out there of her when she
was a member.
Fred Ellis
--
"Who do you serve.... And who do you trust?"
(To e-mail me, remove the X from my address)
Nicole Massey
The Doctor
--
Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising!
https://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k
Ontario, Nfld, and Manitoba boot the extremists out and vote Liberal!
Your Name
<zeb_c...@ymail.com> wrote:
> catpandaddy wrote:
> > "catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote in message
> > news:j4fmd4$dp1$1...@dont-email.me...
> >> <spi...@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>
> >> treatment by unimaginative tv execs with no original ideas?
> >
> > Sorry should have said "one of the first" series.
>
> Buck Rogers in the 25th Century with Gil Gerard and Erin Gray would
> probably fall into that category. The theatrical release of the movie
> was good but the series went downhill after season 1.
For that you can thank the same brainless fools in charge that screwed up
the second season of (the real) Battlestar Galactica ... the second season
of Buck Rogers was MUCH better than the second season of Battlestar
Galactica, although they did at least have the decency to change the name
to Galactica 1980.
Your Name
In terms of TV shows, possibly, but there were movie "remakes" (of both
Falsh Gordon and other ideas) LONG before that. There were also "remakes",
or more precisely "rip-offs", of books even further back.
Duggy
> "Zeb Carter" <zeb_car...@ymail.com> wrote in message
> > Buck Rogers in the 25th Century with Gil Gerard and Erin Gray would
> > probably fall into that category. The theatrical release of the movie was
> > good but the series went downhill after season 1.
> That was probably related to pain on the part of most of the actors as every
> time they brushed against Ms. Gray they got splinters.
The first episode after the pilot actually includes Ms Gray's
replacement... didn't happen.
The first season wasn't great but was better than season to.
And the costume designer seemed to be testing the limits of what he
could get away with on TV.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
I own it on DVD, but have only got half way through.
There are too many shows you can get away with doing other things
while watching and still keep up and I'm too used to doing that.
Charlie Jade is too complex for that. And everytime I stop watching
for a few weeks I've got to rewatch the previous episode again.
I had the same problem with The Wire.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
her... 30s... what sort of photos are you talking about?
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> And verily, didst David Johnston <Da...@block.net> hastily babble thusly:
>
> > On 9/2/2011 2:07 AM, TMC wrote:
>
> >> 2. Making Flash Gordon non-space-bound.
> >> This one still makes us scratch our heads. You get to do the rights of
> >> one of space opera's most recognizable characters, who's famous for
> >> flying around on rockets and battling against aliens in space ??? and
> >> you never put him on a spaceship.
>
> > Flash Gordon battled aliens in spaceships? News to me. Buck Rogers did
> > a lot of spaceship stuff, but Flash was restricted to Mongo.
>
> Errrr... How do you think he got to mongo in the first place?
> In dr zarkov's rocket ship. There was a lot of corny flying around shooting
> sparklers at each other in flash gordon. (the original buster crabbe
> version)
===
= DUG.
===
catpandaddy
"Your Name" <your...@yourisp.com> wrote in message
news:yourname-110...@203-118-184-228.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz...
novelizations made of them.
Tim McGaughy
Tim McGaughy
want to see.
David Barnett
9485c4...@g32g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, p.allan...@gmail.com
says...
no longer allowed to read them when I was a boy.
I think this was my first introduction to SF.
--
David Barnett
Dano
news:dfa41032-e302-4eff...@m3g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
==============================================
I know what you mean. In my case I have some things...including movies that
I don't get around to watching simply because I know I can whenever I want
to. The DVR needs to be cleared to make room for more recordings. So the
tendency is to try to keep current with that first. With Charlie Jade, I
happened to record the whole series (overnight at like 2 or 3 a.m.) so I
watched it 2-3 episodes at a time...but I got hooked pretty quickly. Same
way I watched Firefly having bailed too early when it first ran...out of
sequence as I since learned. That may have had something to do with my not
getting hooked on it when it first ran. Give Charlie a chance...pretty
innovative sci-fi for television especially. I think it was a joint venture
by Canadians and South Africans. Most unusual with almost complete unknown
(to me anyway) actors. My favorite was the character 01. Watch for him.
He was the key to the whole thing.
The Doctor
Your Name
I really meant a new book "remaking" / "ripping-off" an older book, but
you're right, there were and are of course also movies / TV shows that
"remake" books, and as always Hollyweird makes lot sof idiotic changes for
no real reason other than they think they know better than the original
author.
Your Name
<093cd3f0-4f02-45af...@a10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Duggy
Please ignore that Pedantic Prat posting his usual inane reply. :-(
Ignis Fatuus
the second half out of recaps. Much wastage, little progress, and a
confused denouement.
Duggy
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
===
= DUG.
===
Zeb Carter
Johnny Weismuller were contemporaries with regard to being swimming
Olympic swimming champs. I could be wrong.
pbo...@aol.com
> "TMC" <tmc1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:55a098b9-40a4-4f9b...@t20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...http://io9.com/5836461/10-actual-mistakes-that-syfy-has-made-over-the...
>
> 7. Letting Doctor Who get away.
> Syfy let the show go off to BBC America
>
> Guess again?
> BBC America were ALWAYS going to have first US broadcast rights to Doctor
> Who.
> So its hardly a mistake made by SyFy.
>
> But thanks for playing.
Did BBC America exist at the time of the 2005 series transmission?
From the above it sounds as though Sci-Fi was the channel that ended
up airing the Eccleston episodes first.
Phil
pbo...@aol.com
> http://io9.com/5836461/10-actual-mistakes-that-syfy-has-made-over-the...
>
> 1. Canceling Stargate Atlantis.
> Stargate Atlantis ran concurrently with Stargate: SG-1 for its first
> three years. So there was plenty of precedent for running two Stargate
> shows concurrently. And Stargate Atlantis was still scoring pretty
> solid ratings when Syfy decided to pull the plug on it and launch
> Stargate Universe instead. Continuing Stargate Atlantis after the
> launch of Stargate Universe might have kept fans of a lighter Stargate
> happy, as well as signaling that the Stargate franchise was merely
> growing, not changing direction. Thanks for this idea, Tom!
On the other hand, there are so many good reasons for cancelling
anything with the name "Stargate"...
> 2. Making Flash Gordon non-space-bound.
> This one still makes us scratch our heads. You get to do the rights of
> one of space opera's most recognizable characters, who's famous for
> you never put him on a spaceship. Syfy's Flash Gordon reboot involved
> Flash stepping through a portal to another world, Mongo, which managed
> to be simultaneously ultra-campy and kind of dull. (We nicknamed the
> show's villain Ming the Middle-Manager, for his aura of seeming fussy
> and dyspeptic, rather than actually bad-ass.) They ditched the cool
> part of Flash — the space adventure — in favor of all of the campy,
> dated stuff.
If I recall correctly, in the original comics Flash did spend most of
his time on Mongo, assisting rebel factions against Ming. The space-
based serials came later, after the end of the original Flash black-
and-white serial killed Ming off. The change was in the use of a
portal rather than a ship to get there - in itself trivial,
considering just how many other problems existed with the Flash Gordon
remake. And surely "campy, dated stuff" is what Flash always was all
about - look at the cult classic the '70s film became, which ramped up
the dated camp more than even the original serials. I didn't recognise
campy dated stuff in the remake, but then I only made it through a few
episodes. As for Ming, again that was a problem in execution rather
than concept - the intent was apparently to turn him into a dictator
to emphasise the story's political elements, rather than the scheming
camp supervillain of times past.
> 3. Abandoning Friday nights as an action-adventure bloc.
> Would Battlestar Galactica have maintained its rock-solid ratings if
> Syfy had moved it to Tuesdays or Mondays — or would it have suffered
> the same fate as Caprica and Stargate Universe? We'll never know. But
> BSG had been steady on Friday nights since the beginning of its second
> season. In fact, Friday night had become a reliable home for Syfy's
> more action-oriented shows, and lately only Haven appears there,
> alongside wrestling. (Which might do just as well on another night.)
Uh...sci-fi wrestling?
> 4. Marcel's Quantum Kitchen
> When word first leaked that Syfy was doing a cooking show, we mocked.
> It seemed to be pushing Syfy's identity a little too far away from
> science fiction — and outside their core competency.
I would point out that, having just blamed Sci-fi for Stargate, Flash
Gordon and Caprica, it's surely rather a stretch to describe sci-fi as
any kind of "competency" where the channel is concerned... I would
point out The Lost World and its ilk, as well as such wonderful
cinematic treats as Komodo vs. Cobra.
Has Sci-Fi, in fact, ever produced a purely homegrown watchable sci-fi
TV show? It gave Battlestar Galactica a US home, but don't forget that
that was not a Sci-Fi Channel series in its first season; the majority
of its funding was provided by Sky One (which is why Britain aired
those episodes earlier than the US), Sci-Fi just picked up the bill
after the show's credentials were already established.
> 5. Making Caprica a Battlestar prequel instead of a standalone show
> Producer Remi Aubuchon came to Universal with a pitch for a new show
> about artificial intelligence, robots and the creation of life. And
> the studio and/or Syfy encouraged Aubuchon to collaborate with Ronald
> D. Moore and David Eick, to turn his idea into a Battlestar Galactica
> prequel — instead of launching it as a new venture. In retrospect,
> that was clearly a mistake. Everything that was great about Caprica
> could have been great as a new show, but the show felt weighed down by
> the need to connect up with what we already knew would happen later.
> The show was caught in a chokehold of existing mythology from the
> first episode — and it was clearly bursting with new ideas that we'd
> have loved to see develop further.
Actually the show barely tied in with the BSG mythology aside from the
religious angle, and about the only thing that kept a lot of people
watching was, I suspect, mild curiosity to see how this bizarre set of
mismatched lifts combining The Matrix, The Sopranos and Hollyoaks
would lead in its meandering, vaguely plotless way to something
resembling the BSG universe (or, failing that, something resembling a
story would have been a good start). Caprica, again, failed on too
many levels to tie it simply to its branding. It had strong moments,
but from the start it was a mix of interesting ideas whose
relationships weren't thought through, aimless plotting that gave no
sense the writers had a clue where they were going, and for some
strange and highly offputting reason, a surfeit of bad teen soap
opera.
> 6. Not picking up Firefly
> Okay, so this one might have an element of wishful thinking. But
> around the time that Firefly was getting axed by Fox, there was plenty
> of clamor for the Sci-Fi Channel to make a bid to continue Joss
> Whedon's masterpiece. There were certainly reports at the time that,
> as a 2003 article from the Deseret News puts it, "Firefly was shopped
> to other outlets (including the Sci-Fi Channel) but nobody bought it."
> Maybe this was never a serious possibility. Maybe it was impossible,
> for economic reasons. But the Sci-Fi Channel had picked up Stargate:
> SG-1 from Showtime not long earlier.
I've still never seen Firefly, so can't comment.
> 7. Letting Doctor Who get away.
> feelings about it. Everybody expected Syfy to pick up the new show,
> since after all the channel had launched with classic Doctor Who
> repeats in heavy rotation — but Syfy dragged its feet for months, not
> airing the Christopher Eccleston episodes until March 2006. The
> channel frequently aired Doctor Who in first run with deep cuts to
> episodes, and never seemed to have much urgency to air them soon after
> their British airings. Finally, Syfy let the show go off to BBC
> America, which has propelled it to new ratings heights by treating it
> as a major event.
One wonders whether it would have been as successful if Sci-Fi had
picked it up - Sci-Fi has a broader catalogue of shows to promote,
while BBC America seems to recycle a rather limited number of BBC
series. BBC America has more of a vested interest in plugging Dr Who
specifically, just as its British counterpart does, because the rights
to merchandising lie with the corporation and it's one of the BBC's
highest-grossing exports.
> 8. Not owning space opera
> In the past decade, space opera on television has gone from half a
> dozen shows to... none. The 2011 fall TV season in the U.S. won't
> include any shows set in space or on a spaceship, on any channel. This
> presents a huge opportunity to Syfy, to be the channel that gives you
> what you can't get anywhere else. and here's where we mention Syfy's
> mistake in cancelling Farscape, as well as the aforementioned mistakes
> with Stargate Atlantis and keeping Flash Gordon grounded.
Is this a Sci-fi 'mistake' or just a sign of the times? Space opera is
universally seen as dated by TV networks, and sci-fi is packaged to
give it more 'respectability', or at least perceived social relevance,
by instead using near-future settings with contemporary themes. I'm
not sure this is even confined to space opera; heroic adventure shows
are largely a thing of the past, and have been for so long that
Hercules and Xena felt nostalgic when they aired in the '90s. Shows
like Game of Thrones and Battlestar Galactica, with more ambiguous
characters and heavily political themes, have replaced the Star Treks
of years past. Most space operas fall into that category, hence they
go the same way.
> 9. The name change
> Actually, this one is still up in the air, because Syfy's strategy
> still hasn't played out. Part of the rationale behind creating a new
> brand name was the ability to brand new associated Syfy ventures,
> including Syfy Kids, Syfy Films and Syfy Games. So far, these ventures
> appear to have generated very little heat — but it's early yet. Syfy
> Films is supposed to have its first theatrical release in 2012 —
> although shouldn't that already be in production at this point? In
> other ways, though, we can judge the name change a failure. According
> to Proud Creative (PDF), which worked on the brand campaign, the goal
> was "retaining the positive associations from the genre of science
> fiction, whilst appealing to a broader audience and embracing the
> benefits of imagination."
How on Earth is it intended to do that? By broadening it's appeal to
include not just typical science-fiction fans, but also the ones who
can't spell?
And the marketing campaign for Caprica, for
> example, seemed to emphasize its appeal to that broader audience,
> without much noticeable success.
Quite possibly because it was trying to be three different shows for
three different audiences *at the same time*, rather than one show for
several audiences, hence its sense of confusion about its own identity
and direction. Though why the producers thought the teen soap audience
would be one of the target demographics I have no idea.
Also, as Wired's GeekDad blog pointed
> out recently, Syfy's Mark Stern told io9 in 2009 that the name change
> would allow Syfy to greenlight more hard science fiction, because
> "hard scifi on the Sci-Fi Channel is almost like this double whammy.
> Now that we have a brand that is a little broader ... it also gives us
> a lot of freedom to do more hard scifi."
He may have said it, but it's self-evidently gibberish.
(In the same interview, Stern
> said the channel was looking at launching a new space opera in 2010 or
> 2011 — we're still waiting!)
Battlestar Galactica: Blood and Chrome? Has that aired yet?
So if one goal of the name change was to
> free up Syfy to do more hard science fiction, then it clearly hasn't
> worked.
TV has never done hard science fiction. It's hard to imagine a
lightweight channel like Sci-Fi giving it a shot.
> 10. Canceling Eureka
> And finally... this is what started us thinking about this topic.
> Eureka wrapped production on its final ever episode yesterday. And
> this still seems really arbitrary, for a show that was still going
> strong after four seasons. It would be one thing if Eureka was pulling
> in Stargate Universe numbers, but it's not. The most recent episode
> drew 2.1 million viewers, compared with 2.3 million for Warehouse 13
> and just 1.8 million for Alphas. As Geek Dad points out, this follows
> a legacy of canceling Farscape and Dresden Files, both of which were
> still enjoying decent ratings.
Alsoa show I've never seen.
Phil
pbo...@aol.com
> TMC wrote:
> >http://io9.com/5836461/10-actual-mistakes-that-syfy-has-made-over-the...
>
> > 1. Canceling Stargate Atlantis.
> > Stargate Atlantis ran concurrently with Stargate: SG-1 for its first
> > three years. So there was plenty of precedent for running two Stargate
> > shows concurrently. And Stargate Atlantis was still scoring pretty
> > solid ratings when Syfy decided to pull the plug on it and launch
> > Stargate Universe instead. Continuing Stargate Atlantis after the
> > launch of Stargate Universe might have kept fans of a lighter Stargate
> > happy, as well as signaling that the Stargate franchise was merely
> > growing, not changing direction. Thanks for this idea, Tom!
>
> it made sense to do a "BSG" type show. Problem is, they did all the
> style, but cocked up the arc plotting. Remember, it was sold as an arc
> show.
>
> SGA was just too lite and not much different from SG1. In some ways,
> they whould have not bothered with SGA and refreshed SG1.
>
>
>
> > 2. Making Flash Gordon non-space-bound.
> > This one still makes us scratch our heads. You get to do the rights of
> > one of space opera's most recognizable characters, who's famous for
> > flying around on rockets and battling against aliens in space — and
> > you never put him on a spaceship. Syfy's Flash Gordon reboot involved
> > Flash stepping through a portal to another world, Mongo, which managed
> > to be simultaneously ultra-campy and kind of dull. (We nicknamed the
> > show's villain Ming the Middle-Manager, for his aura of seeming fussy
> > and dyspeptic, rather than actually bad-ass.) They ditched the cool
> > part of Flash — the space adventure — in favor of all of the campy,
> > dated stuff.
>
> could think of was "where the damn Queen music",
And where was Brian Blessed??
I think the best advert a new Flash revival could have would be simply
to say: "And this time no one will say 'Flash, Flash, I love you, and
we only have 14 minutes to save the Earth!'"
and 2, often it looked
> like its was shot in a back yard by students.
The latter finally stopped me watching after I'd struggled through 4
or 5 episodes - I think the defining moment was the comically bad
attempt at explaining away the 'birdmen' of the original Flash as a
bunch of tribesmen with a costume fetish and a habit of squawking at
their opponents while flapping their arms.
> > 5. Making Caprica a Battlestar prequel instead of a standalone show
> > Producer Remi Aubuchon came to Universal with a pitch for a new show
> > about artificial intelligence, robots and the creation of life. And
> > the studio and/or Syfy encouraged Aubuchon to collaborate with Ronald
> > D. Moore and David Eick, to turn his idea into a Battlestar Galactica
> > prequel — instead of launching it as a new venture. In retrospect,
> > that was clearly a mistake. Everything that was great about Caprica
> > could have been great as a new show, but the show felt weighed down by
> > the need to connect up with what we already knew would happen later.
> > The show was caught in a chokehold of existing mythology from the
> > first episode — and it was clearly bursting with new ideas that we'd
> > have loved to see develop further.
>
> I really dont know what happened to Caprica. On paper its was the
> perfect "AC" show. I watched 4-5 episodes and it bored me senseless.
It got wrapped up in trying to appeal to a wide audience at the
expense of telling a single story with a single, coherent plot, so we
got teen opera for the kids, The Sopranos for, well, fans of The
Sopranos, token Cylons for the BSG fans, and a whole random add-on of
outdated Matrix effects fpr the fans of bad, overly-pretentious sci-fi
action movies.
> > 7. Letting Doctor Who get away.
> > When Doctor Who came back to life in 2005, Syfy seemed to have mixed
> > feelings about it. Everybody expected Syfy to pick up the new show,
> > since after all the channel had launched with classic Doctor Who
> > repeats in heavy rotation — but Syfy dragged its feet for months, not
> > airing the Christopher Eccleston episodes until March 2006. The
> > channel frequently aired Doctor Who in first run with deep cuts to
> > episodes, and never seemed to have much urgency to air them soon after
> > their British airings. Finally, Syfy let the show go off to BBC
> > America, which has propelled it to new ratings heights by treating it
> > as a major event.
>
> As a Brit I just assume DW is great and everyone on the planet who
> doesn't like it should be shot. But really? That popular in the US?
In relative terms. BBC America is a minor subscription-only channel,
but Dr Who is the channel's flagship show.
> I cant disagree there. I adore proper space opera, but AFAIAC, there has
> only really been one, Babylon 5. The others were funky and spacey, and
> good junk food as it were, but not proper space opera at all.
How is that substantially different from Babylon 5?
Phil
pbo...@aol.com
> In article <2b-dnUIZ08oDXv3TnZ2dnUVZ8lOdn...@eclipse.net.uk>,
>
> "Agamemnon" <agamem...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
> > What about showing professional wrestling?
>
> Well, they got the "fiction" part right.
Shouldn't that be fyction?
Phil
Duggy
> I know what you mean. In my case I have some things...including movies that
> I don't get around to watching simply because I know I can whenever I want
> to. The DVR needs to be cleared to make room for more recordings. So the
> tendency is to try to keep current with that first. With Charlie Jade, I
> happened to record the whole series (overnight at like 2 or 3 a.m.) so I
> watched it 2-3 episodes at a time...but I got hooked pretty quickly. Same
> way I watched Firefly having bailed too early when it first ran...out of
> sequence as I since learned.
> That may have had something to do with my not
> getting hooked on it when it first ran. Give Charlie a chance...pretty
> innovative sci-fi for television especially. I think it was a joint venture
> by Canadians and South Africans. Most unusual with almost complete unknown
> (to me anyway) actors. My favorite was the character 01. Watch for him.
> He was the key to the whole thing.
just having it on in the background.
===
= DUG.
===
Deeyana
> On the other hand, there are so many good reasons for cancelling
> anything with the name "Stargate"...
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
Adam H. Kerman
>>But thanks for playing.
BBC America existed but didn't clear all that many cable homes in those
days as nearly no cabler put it on analog cable. It had very little
budget for original productions.
Sci-Fi Channel aired the first four series. However, the post-series
four movies David Tennant did aired on BBCA. Tennant wasn't available
for series five.
Duggy
> First half's brilliant. Then they sacked the writers and constructed
> the second half out of recaps. Much wastage, little progress, and a
> confused denouement.
forward... to...
===
= DUG.
===
Dano
news:251o67d39ga5kvmjl...@4ax.com...
Well I don't know for sure...I barely heard of the show, let alone knew
anything of what transpired behind the scenes as you seem to claim...but I
just assumed they knew the end was near for the show and wrapped things up
as best they could. You just can't win when it comes to this stuff.
Sometimes you run far longer than ever dreamed (LOST), thereby digging
yourself a hole you can't escape from...and others you barely get to scratch
the surface of all your ideas. Again...I have no idea about this case. I
just happened to see some comments about the show before I ever got a chance
to see for myself. Then I was disappointed when SyFy (might have still been
the Sci-Fi network then) buried the episodes in the middle of the night.
Personally I enjoyed the hell out of it. Flawed? Sure. Not much isn't.
But I found it to be a very pleasant surprise and far superior to 90% of the
dreck SyFy chooses to put on.
Tim McGaughy
something to add?
Tim McGaughy
Ignis Fatuus
wrote:
it is to do any research or even a simple google. So I shan't attempt
to justify my 'claims' with any citations, or even a chronological
list of writers that shows a clear break between the original team and
the team which developed the second half of season one. More
specifically, I shan't refer to the episode Can Of Worms, which was
filmed months after production of the series was completed.
It would also be remiss of me to mention that I've had the DVDs for
about four years, watched them about a dozen times, and made numerous
references to the show in RADW.
Incidentally, scripts were written for season 2, and season 1 was
completed before the show was officially cancelled. But don't let that
get in the way of a good theory.
RT
>
> "RT" wrote in message news:4E63AB58...@hotmMOVEail.com...
> Dano wrote:
> >
> > How about buying Charlie Jade...only to bury it overnite, showing it at
> > like
> > 2 or 3 in the a.m. with no promotion?
> >
> > Never got that at all either. What a waste.
>
> Charlie who? Looked it up. eh
>
>
> Well worth checking out if you ever get the chance. One of the better
> efforts ever for a TV sci-fi series. I liked this one season nearly as much
> as Firefly.
Looked it up on youtube. Meh.
RT
>
> In article <O5Kaq.13534$zx2....@newsfe08.iad>, Zeb Carter
> > catpandaddy wrote:
> > > "catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote in message
> > > news:j4fmd4$dp1$1...@dont-email.me...
> > >> <spi...@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message
> > >>
> > >> treatment by unimaginative tv execs with no original ideas?
> > >
> > > Sorry should have said "one of the first" series.
> >
> > Buck Rogers in the 25th Century with Gil Gerard and Erin Gray would
> > probably fall into that category. The theatrical release of the movie
> > was good but the series went downhill after season 1.
>
> the second season of (the real) Battlestar Galactica ... the second season
> of Buck Rogers was MUCH better than the second season of Battlestar
> Galactica, although they did at least have the decency to change the name
> to Galactica 1980.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yptoaCKZ0Tw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oFX7IgLlD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKFNrae_QDY&NR=1
Dano
"Ignis Fatuus" wrote in message
>anything of what transpired behind the scenes as you seem to claim...but I
>just assumed they knew the end was near for the show and wrapped things up
>as best they could. You just can't win when it comes to this stuff.
I agree that it's much easier to pluck theories out of thin air than
it is to do any research or even a simple google. So I shan't attempt
to justify my 'claims' with any citations, or even a chronological
list of writers that shows a clear break between the original team and
the team which developed the second half of season one. More
specifically, I shan't refer to the episode Can Of Worms, which was
filmed months after production of the series was completed.
It would also be remiss of me to mention that I've had the DVDs for
about four years, watched them about a dozen times, and made numerous
references to the show in RADW.
Incidentally, scripts were written for season 2, and season 1 was
completed before the show was officially cancelled. But don't let that
get in the way of a good theory.
Jesus pal...how much clearer would I need to make it for you? I SAID I
didn't know, or claim to have any fucking great insight. A tad obsessed
with this are you? Damn. I'm out. Bite my freaking head off over this?
Screw you. I really don't care. All I was indicating was it was a pretty
enjoyable show...FOR ME...IMHO it was far better than most of what airs on
that network...then or now. Call it damning with faint praise if you like.
I have learned from this little exchange however...I don't give two sloppy
shits what YOU think any longer. Have a nice fucking day.
Your Name
<traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Sorry, YouTube "sux" via a dial-up connection, so those links aren't even
worth trying for me.
Ignis Fatuus
wrote:
Ditto
I think I forgot to mention that Jeffrey Pierce (Charlie Jade) has a
part in the new SF show Alcatraz (from the JJ Abrams/Bad Robot stable)
alongside Sam Neill, Robert Forster (Jackie Brown, Mulholland Drive,
Heroes), and Jorge Garcia (Hurley from Lost, as a comic book expert).
He plays a long dead inmate of the prison. Starts broadcasting
Januaryish.
john smith
"Ignis Fatuus" <Ig...@fatuusisland.com> wrote in message
news:la4r67d75tuoqtv9s...@4ax.com...
Ignis Fatuus
Long dead inmates reappearing on the streets of S(an) F(rancisco)?
Invent your own label.... but I'm pretty sure it's not documentary.
john smith
a bit like "Lost". ;-)
I was probably thinking of "True Blood" guy Alan Ball's new series
"Banshee", which I read has no 'genre elements'. Perhaps I should've used
that term, rather than going with the (your!) SF one... (You know what a
liar Abrams is anyway, eh, when it comes to misleading/false-footing the
audience?)
I'm very much looking forward to "Fringe", though!
Ignis Fatuus
You might at least give me credit for my Sang-Froid (or should that be
sang-fried, like a black pudding?).
>I was probably thinking of "True Blood" guy Alan Ball's new series
>"Banshee", which I read has no 'genre elements'. Perhaps I should've used
>that term, rather than going with the (your!) SF one... (You know what a
>liar Abrams is anyway, eh, when it comes to misleading/false-footing the
>audience?)
>
>I'm very much looking forward to "Fringe", though!
>
last season I'm wondering whether to wait and see if they manage to
complete this one.
Still, I'm also looking forward to seeing which Genres rear their ugly
heads in Alcatraz. Perhaps a tale of the undead that finally engages
me? Or just a long wait for something I hate? Excellent cast though...
and a comic book fiend as a main character. Shades of Unbreakable?
Only MNS movie I've enjoyed.
Tim McGaughy
Your Name
Simple fact is I can't be bothered paying the over-priced cost for
broadband - it's bad enough paying for the cost dial-up when the useless
morons at Vodafone New Zealand can't even run their servers properly. :-(
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:yourname-110...@203-118-184-228.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz:
> In article <O5Kaq.13534$zx2....@newsfe08.iad>, Zeb Carter
> <zeb_c...@ymail.com> wrote:
>> catpandaddy wrote:
>> > "catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote in message
>> > news:j4fmd4$dp1$1...@dont-email.me...
>> >> <spi...@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >>
>> >> Was Flash Gordon the first tv series to be given the
>> >> "Reboot" treatment by unimaginative tv execs with no
>> >> original ideas?
>> >
>> > Sorry should have said "one of the first" series.
>>
>> Buck Rogers in the 25th Century with Gil Gerard and Erin Gray
>> would probably fall into that category. The theatrical release
>> of the movie was good but the series went downhill after season
>> 1.
>
> For that you can thank the same brainless fools in charge that
> screwed up the second season of (the real) Battlestar Galactica
> ... the second season of Buck Rogers was MUCH better than the
> second season of Battlestar Galactica, although they did at
> least have the decency to change the name to Galactica 1980.
different premise, and was produced as a children's show.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Your Name
> your...@yourisp.com (Your Name) wrote in
> news:yourname-110...@203-118-184-228.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz:
> > In article <O5Kaq.13534$zx2....@newsfe08.iad>, Zeb Carter
> > <zeb_c...@ymail.com> wrote:
> >> catpandaddy wrote:
> >> > "catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote in message
> >> > news:j4fmd4$dp1$1...@dont-email.me...
> >> >> <spi...@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> >>
> >> >> Was Flash Gordon the first tv series to be given the
> >> >> "Reboot" treatment by unimaginative tv execs with no
> >> >> original ideas?
> >> >
> >> > Sorry should have said "one of the first" series.
> >>
> >> Buck Rogers in the 25th Century with Gil Gerard and Erin Gray
> >> would probably fall into that category. The theatrical release
> >> of the movie was good but the series went downhill after season
> >> 1.
> >
> > For that you can thank the same brainless fools in charge that
> > screwed up the second season of (the real) Battlestar Galactica
> > ... the second season of Buck Rogers was MUCH better than the
> > second season of Battlestar Galactica, although they did at
> > least have the decency to change the name to Galactica 1980.
>
> It wasn't a second season. It was different people, with a
> different premise, and was produced as a children's show.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Cole) over some random retard on the internet. And Mr. Cole says
you're a retarded troll who would be in heaven if only he could
suck his own dick.
Your Name
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
You?
Your Name
> your...@yourisp.com (Your Name) wrote in
> news:yourname-140...@203-118-185-53.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz:
> > In article <Xns9F5F9B10281...@69.16.186.7>, Gutless
> > Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> your...@yourisp.com (Your Name) wrote in
> >> news:yourname-140...@203-118-184-129.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.n
> >> z:
> >> > In article <Xns9F5F86D0433...@69.16.186.7>,
> >> > Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> your...@yourisp.com (Your Name) wrote in
> >> >> news:yourname-110...@203-118-184-228.dsl.dyn.ihug.c
> >> >> o.n z:
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
You will now reply.
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Tim McGaughy
> Simple fact is I can't be bothered paying the over-priced cost for
> broadband
Your Name
catpandaddy
"Your Name" <your...@yourisp.com> wrote in message
news:yourname-170...@203-118-185-13.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz...
right? ;o)
Your Name
>
> You're going to continue to say "Whatever utter crap you want to believe",
> right? ;o)
sake of it. Such imbeciles simply aren't worth bothering to try and deal
with in any other way.