Only #13?
Iva
shows - B5 comes in at #13, much too low (of course!) but I did
appreciate the comments:
13. BABYLON 5
(1993-1998)
While I've never been an overwhelmingly huge fan of J. Michael
Straczynski's interstellar sci-fi series set on the nexus-like space
station of the title, I've always appreciated it. It's not every day -
or every decade - that genre fans get a densely plotted,
character-heavy series that doesn't pander to the lowest common
denominator and manages to run for exactly as long as its creator
intended. If that was all Babylon 5 did, there'd be cause for
celebration. But that it also managed to be good...heck, champagne all
around. -Marc Bernardin
http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20302134_20308150_8,00.html
-----
Iva
Elko T
> Entertainment Weekly has listed its Top 25 science fiction television
> shows - B5 comes in at #13, much too low (of course!) but I did
> appreciate the comments:
What good are the comments, if the ranking is low? Anyhow, I find
this whole top-20 a little jocular. Twilight zone #1? Star Trek Original
#2? New BSG #3? X-Files #4? Star Trek TNG #5? (OK, that one belongs in
the top 10, IMHO, but the rest?) Firefly at #7 is the only one that at
least slightly agrees with my personal ranking. And some of the entries
are not strictly Sci-Fi in my reckoning - Futurama and Alien Nation -
although they definitely deserve their place in my top 10.
I can't really rank the shows in order, but I have preferences
which shows I consider top 5, top 10, and so on. My top 5 are B5
(including Crusade - I even prefer some elements of Crusade to B5
proper), Farscape (a glaring omission in that EWW list), Firefly,
Stargate (both series, or rather, the best of Stargate, since the show
as it stretched, had some rather dire moments), and Blake's 7.
Completing my top 10 are two Star Treks - DS9 and TNG, Alien Nation,
Futurama, and Earth: Final Conflict (another EWW omission). To round off
my top 15, I would add, in no particular order, John Doe, Jeremiah
(Season 2 only, season 1 was utterly disappointing - yes, I found and
watched it), Andromeda, the whole bionic human thing as one entry - ($20
million man, new Bionic Woman, Jake 2.0), and the pretender concept
(Pretender/Dollhouse). And to complete an arbitrary top 20, I could
honorably mention Twilight Zone and Outer Limits (even though they are
anthology shows and should be ineligible, IMO), new BSG, and to add some
fantasy - Xena, and Legend of the Seeker (which turned out to be not bad
at all, after one overcomes one's disappointment that it is only loosely
based on the book).
voxwoman
> Iva wrote:
> > Entertainment Weekly has listed its Top 25 science fiction television
> > shows - B5 comes in at #13, much too low (of course!) but I did
> > appreciate the comments:
>
> What good are the comments, if the ranking is low? Anyhow, I find
> this whole top-20 a little jocular. Twilight zone #1? Star Trek Original
> #2? New BSG #3? X-Files #4? Star Trek TNG #5? (OK, that one belongs in
> the top 10, IMHO, but the rest?) Firefly at #7 is the only one that at
> least slightly agrees with my personal ranking. And some of the entries
> are not strictly Sci-Fi in my reckoning - Futurama and Alien Nation -
> although they definitely deserve their place in my top 10.
Futurarma is definitely SF. There is time travel, space travel,
aliens, robots, talking heads in jars, and mad scientists. The fact
that it's also funny or a cartoon doesn't mean it's not SF.
The problem with these sorts of lists is that they have to cater to
people for whom (in the words of Harlan Ellison) "Nostalgia is what
you had for lunch" (he said that in a talk I attended at Brookdale
College a decade or so ago). As the show ages and is NOT shown on TV
in syndication (like TOS was for the past 30 years), you will have new
generations not knowing what the heck you're talking about. So the top
10 are going to be things that either are currently airing or have
aired in the past 5 years or so. (Twilight Zone is still on TV -
especially during holiday weekends).
> I can't really rank the shows in order, but I have preferences
> which shows I consider top 5, top 10, and so on. My top 5 are B5
> (including Crusade - I even prefer some elements of Crusade to B5
> proper), Farscape (a glaring omission in that EWW list), Firefly,
> Stargate (both series, or rather, the best of Stargate, since the show
> as it stretched, had some rather dire moments), and Blake's 7.
> Completing my top 10 are two Star Treks - DS9 and TNG, Alien Nation,
> Futurama, and Earth: Final Conflict (another EWW omission). To round off
> my top 15, I would add, in no particular order, John Doe, Jeremiah
> (Season 2 only, season 1 was utterly disappointing - yes, I found and
> watched it), Andromeda, the whole bionic human thing as one entry - ($20
> million man, new Bionic Woman, Jake 2.0), and the pretender concept
> (Pretender/Dollhouse). And to complete an arbitrary top 20, I could
> honorably mention Twilight Zone and Outer Limits (even though they are
> anthology shows and should be ineligible, IMO), new BSG, and to add some
> fantasy - Xena, and Legend of the Seeker (which turned out to be not bad
> at all, after one overcomes one's disappointment that it is only loosely
> based on the book).
If you are going to lump franchise shows together, then all the treks
should only get one slot (and probably the #1 slot)
If you're going to start adding fantasy (i.e. Xena) to the list, then
you should also add in things like "Bewitched" and "I Dream of
Jeannie" (that show at least had astronauts in it!)
Twilight Zone and Outer Limits were the "best of the first" and set
the bar for much that was to follow. It doesn't matter that they were
"anthology" shows - how is that different than a show where everything
has to be "the same" as when the show started (i.e. reset button)?
And I'm sorry, but Earth:Final Conflict doesn't deserve to be in any
"best of" list. If it was a really good show, Rodenberry would have
got it green-lighted when he was alive.
Stargate is fun, but really, it's "Earth will be destroyed unless we
solve $problem with 30 seconds to spare" every single week.
I don't pay attention to the various popular votes/polls/lists. My
tastes have run counter to popular opinions since I started preferring
King Crimson over Yes when Greg Lake was still playing bass for Robert
Fripp.
-Wendy
Jon Schild
> If you are going to lump franchise shows together, then all the treks
> should only get one slot (and probably the #1 slot)
I disagree. The execrable tripe of Voyager should not drag down the
rest, which were all superior. (All but Enterprise were vastly
superior.) If I rank them separately, with 25 for excellent and 0 for
_Plan 9 From Outer Space_ "quality," the list is
22 TNG
19 DS9
15 TOS including animated episodes
8 Enterprise
-1 Voyager
One way to express the major difference between TNG and Voyager is that
TNG had a few bad episodes, while Voyager had a few good ones.
Dan Dassow
> One way to express the major difference between TNG and Voyager is that
> TNG had a few bad episodes, while Voyager had a few good ones.
Or put another way, the bad episodes on "TNG" were rare but tolerable.
The bad episodes on "Voyager" were predominant, many of which induce
nausea.
Voyager has, in my humble opinion, the worst Star Trek episode of all
time: "Threshold" (AKA "Mudpuppies in Love").
Dan Dassow
Mac Breck
All true.
--
Mac Breck (KoshN)
-------------------------------
"Babylon 5: Crusade" (1999) - "War Zone"
Galen (to Gideon): "I've been penalized before for helping other
people. I've been trying to decide whether or not I should risk it
again."
voxwoman
Oh, yeah... Voyager. I forgot about that one. I seem to have the
ability to remove things from my universe like that.
-Wendy
voxwoman
I didn't watch enough of voyager to know what the names of the
episodes are, much less see the one to which you're referring (Much
like my only seeing a handful of the films rotten tomatoes dubbed
"worst 100 movies of all time").
-Wendy
Nicole Massey
"Jon Schild" <j...@xmission.com> wrote in message
news:ha7s20$nqg$1...@news.xmission.com...
> voxwoman wrote:
>
>> If you are going to lump franchise shows together, then all the treks
>> should only get one slot (and probably the #1 slot)
>
> I disagree. The execrable tripe of Voyager should not drag down the rest,
> which were all superior. (All but Enterprise were vastly superior.) If I
> rank them separately, with 25 for excellent and 0 for _Plan 9 From Outer
> Space_ "quality," the list is
> 22 TNG
> 19 DS9
> 15 TOS including animated episodes
> 8 Enterprise
> -1 Voyager
It always amazes me how much people liked TNG. I also find myself surprised
when people say they liked TNG more than DS9.But I can understand the
problems with Voyager -- They squandered most of their dramatic
possibilities in the pilot, and the rest pretty quickly, and adding 44 of DD
didn't help things much except for titilation. Many people believe the
Franchise Fatigue really set in with Enterprise, but I firmly believe it was
present in Voyager.
My theory was that one of the reasons RDM did BsG was so he could deal with
some of the things he disliked about Voyager, like how the ship always
seemed to stay in top repair and how the stress of being lost never really
seemed to bother the crew like it should.
Scott Lerman
Final episode. 'Nuff said.
Vince M Hudd
> It always amazes me how much people liked TNG.
IIRC when TNG was first broadcast on this side of the puddle, it was just
about the only new/decent science fiction being broadcast here. I certainly
don't remember anything else around that time - and I can't remember much at
all for some years before it. That's a big factor in why I like TNG. (Plus,
if memory serves, there *were* some *very* good episodes.)
Mind you, I think I've only ever watched it all the way through the once,
when it was first broadcast. If I watched it again now, I might not be so
keen. :)
[...]
--
Vince M Hudd
Soft Rock Software
Bill
> "Jon Schild" <j...@xmission.com> wrote in message
> when people say they liked TNG more than DS9.But I can understand the
> problems with Voyager -- They squandered most of their dramatic
> possibilities in the pilot, and the rest pretty quickly, and adding 44 of DD
> didn't help things much except for titilation. Many people believe the
> Franchise Fatigue really set in with Enterprise, but I firmly believe it was
> present in Voyager.
>
Opinions like certain body parts, etc. I liked TNG until one, maybe
two seasons after Roddenberry died. The show got very stale and too
predictable to me, even knowing that the reset button was going to be
punched at the end of each episode. DS9 and Voyager suffered similar
problems in that many of the interesting conflicts (Cardassian/Bajoran
and Starfleet/Maquis) were solved in the pilot or in very short order
well before the end of the first season. Both series lost my interest
quickly. I didn't even finish watching the pilot for Enterprise
because they lost me with Vulcans losing their tempers and yelling at
people.
Bill
Scott Lerman
Anybody that complains about season 1 of B5 should go back and watch
season 1 of TNG. Of course it's hard to know for sure if it was the
writing, the acting, or the directing, but Data was quite possibly one
of the most annoying characters ever, followed closely by Picard.
Josh Hill
>Iva wrote:
>> Entertainment Weekly has listed its Top 25 science fiction television
>> shows - B5 comes in at #13, much too low (of course!) but I did
>> appreciate the comments:
>
> What good are the comments, if the ranking is low? Anyhow, I find
>this whole top-20 a little jocular. Twilight zone #1? Star Trek Original
>#2?
Hey, those are the only two ratings I agree with! His later rankings
are, I think, more questionable. I'd put B5 in #3, and the second
Galactica would also be high on my list. TNG would probably be on it,
albeit it was a lot more uneven than TOS (I saw someone complaining
recently that TOS had only two years' worth of good shows, not
realizing that it had only been on for 2-1/2, and that most of the bad
episodes were on after Rodenberry quit the show). So would Jeremiah --
Crusade wasn't allowed to hit its stride.
What I see in looking at my list is that all of these shows are more
than action adventure: they offer sometimes trenchant commentary on
the human condition. In short, they have more heft than standard TV
fare.
--
Josh
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex and more violent. It
takes a touch of genius and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction"
- Albert Einstein.
Matt Ion
I don't think the "bad" episodes in TNG were really "bad" so much as
they were downright pedantic.
Josh Hill
wrote:
>I didn't watch enough of voyager to know what the names of the
>episodes are, much less see the one to which you're referring (Much
>like my only seeing a handful of the films rotten tomatoes dubbed
>"worst 100 movies of all time").
Neither did I, but I think it's no accident that one of the best
episodes was the one with the dinosaurs -- because the cast of Voyager
doesn't appear until half way in!
Josh Hill
wrote:
>I disagree. The execrable tripe of Voyager should not drag down the
>rest, which were all superior. (All but Enterprise were vastly
>superior.) If I rank them separately, with 25 for excellent and 0 for
>_Plan 9 From Outer Space_ "quality," the list is
>22 TNG
>19 DS9
>15 TOS including animated episodes
>8 Enterprise
>-1 Voyager
>
>One way to express the major difference between TNG and Voyager is that
>TNG had a few bad episodes, while Voyager had a few good ones.
I think I'd give Enterprise about a -386, though. Not only was it
missing everything that made Star Trek good, it was missing everything
that made Ishtar and Plan 9 From Outer Space good.
Josh Hill
Voyager and Enterprise suffered from a terminal lack of imagination.
Surely you'd find something more interesting and unusual in a new
quadrant of the galaxy than latex-nosed space pirates! Deep Space 9,
too -- a friend once compared it to a "shopping mall in space." But
Deep Space 9 at least had some solid character-driven shows, which
partly made up for the lack of sci fi (a wormhole to yet another
quadrant and the best they can come up with is silly putty
creatures?). And Enterprise couldn't even come up with new latex.
I agree that TNG (and the whole Trek franchise) began to wither after
Roddenberry died. He was too impaired to have much of a role in TNG
after the beginning, but he always held the line against the TV
tendency to recycle what worked last week -- Vulcans, Klingons,
Andorians -- and to forget that the galaxy is a very big place.
Matt Ion
> I think I'd give Enterprise about a -386, though. Not only was it
> missing everything that made Star Trek good, it was missing everything
> that made Ishtar and Plan 9 From Outer Space good.
ROFL!! I have to remember that one, that could apply to a lot of things :)
Mel
Do you think the new Stargate: Voyager...er, Universe, will be any
different?
Mel
Wes Struebing
wrote:
<snip>
>
>One way to express the major difference between TNG and Voyager is that
>TNG had a few bad episodes, while Voyager had a few good ones.
It did?
Josh Hill
>Nicole Massey wrote:
>> My theory was that one of the reasons RDM did BsG was so he could deal with
>> some of the things he disliked about Voyager, like how the ship always
>> seemed to stay in top repair and how the stress of being lost never really
>> seemed to bother the crew like it should.
>
>Do you think the new Stargate: Voyager...er, Universe, will be any
>different?
Judging by the first episode, they've gone out of their way to avoid
those mistakes. Whether they'll stay true to course remains to be seen
.. . .
Nicole Massey
"Mel" <melb...@uci.net> wrote in message
news:365d2s....@integratelecom.com...
>
>
> Do you think the new Stargate: Voyager...er, Universe, will be any
> different?
>
>
> Mel
Don't know. Listened to it last night, (I'm blind these days, so I can't
really watch it) and it seemed aq bit disjointed and I wasn't a fan of the
music, but I'll give it a chance.
Amy Guskin
(in article <ha9442$kt8$1...@news.albasani.net>):
I have it on the DVR, but can't figure out when I'm going to actually have
time to view it -- I'm working all weekend, and that looks like it's going to
be the status quo for the foreseeable future.
Amy (happy to have some work, but incredibly swamped!)
--
Ten Thousand Questions
A Question a Day for Journaling, Self-Discovery, and Transformation
"2009 is the Year of Questions"
tenthousandquestions.com
Jeffrey Kaplan
> Voyager and Enterprise suffered from a terminal lack of imagination.
> Surely you'd find something more interesting and unusual in a new
> quadrant of the galaxy than latex-nosed space pirates! Deep Space 9,
> too -- a friend once compared it to a "shopping mall in space." But
> Deep Space 9 at least had some solid character-driven shows, which
> partly made up for the lack of sci fi (a wormhole to yet another
> quadrant and the best they can come up with is silly putty
> creatures?). And Enterprise couldn't even come up with new latex.
ST:E wasn't about "what is new to the audience", it was "what is new to
the crew". It was set a generation or two +before+ TOS. One of my
gripes with it is that they did in fact introduce new and powerful
species.
--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
Double ROT13 encoded for your protection
"It has a nine-year-old heroine. This is good enough for the
industry, which believes that books with children as the main
protagonist are de facto books for children. For similar reasons,
Moby Dick is very popular among whales." - Terry Pratchett on why "Wee
Free Men" is a children's book
Josh Hill
wrote:
>ST:E wasn't about "what is new to the audience", it was "what is new to
>the crew".
Which made for a fairly boring premise, because we knew what was
coming. About the only surprises were negative ones, e.g., Vulcans who
didn't behave like Vulcans . . .
> It was set a generation or two +before+ TOS. One of my
>gripes with it is that they did in fact introduce new and powerful
>species.
Seems to me that since the galaxy is a large place, they could have
and should have introduced lots of interesting "one off" powerful
species, like the Tholians or the tranya guy etc. Major players like
the Klingons or Romulans are another story. And, really, when they did
get around to introducing powerful species, they did a lousy job of
it, they were BEM's rather than something you can believe in. As the
franchise progressed, the new species became less and less believable
and conformed more and more to B movie sci fi stereotypes. The
transformation of the Klingons is a case in point: to me, they were
interesting and scary when they behaved like Russians, a real enemy,
in TOS, just a joke after they'd been turned into wookies. And things
just got worse from there.
Mel
Nicole Massey wrote:
They jumped from present to past quite a bit, with not very good
transitions in-between. Even for someone able to see what was going on,
it felt disjointed. And some of the angles didn't really show me what
the characters kept telling me they were seeing, especially regarding
the shuttle venting atmosphere.
Mel
Dr Nancy's Sweetie
> Neither did I, but I think it's no accident that one of the best
> episodes was the one with the dinosaurs -- because the cast of Voyager
> doesn't appear until half way in!
Is it the one where distant descendants of hadrosaurs are running a planet
and they capture Voyager, and some of the scientists think their species
evolved on Earth and then emigrated, which goes against the official
doctrine about how they are from the part of space they're in?
Like all Star Trek episodes in which evolution comes up, that one hit
me like fingers on a blackboard. The Star Trek writers are borderline
scientifically illiterate, but their absolute worst subject has to be
evolution. They had an episode of TNG in which atavistic DNA was
switched by a virus, and a human crewman developed spider-like
features. But humans and arachnids parted company in the evolutionary
tree so long ago that no human crewman has spider DNA unless his name
is Peter Parker. In the Voyager episode (which Wikipedia tells me was
named "Distant Origin"), they catch one of the aliens and dig around
in its DNA and Janeway asks "What would a hadrosaur look like if it
continued to evolve?", and the holodeck cranks out *exactly* the thing
laying in sickbay -- when "continued to evolve" demonstrates a horrific
ignorance of how evolution works. There isn't even any way to make the
question sensible: "What would it's descendants look like if it hadn't
died out?" is also beyond ridiculous. Sharks have been on the planet
since before there were any dinosaurs, and they look pretty much the
same as their ancestors did hundreds of millions of years ago.
The other thing which Star Trek does drastically wrong is having one
side be obviously right and the other wrong, producing uninteresting
morality plays.
So THIS episode combines the two worst elements of Star Trek: they made
a scientifically ridiculous story which was also a transparently one-
sided morality play on the evils of rigid doctrinal orthodoxy. Yuk.
Darren Provine ! kil...@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"My first thought was: You have to be stupid to be stunned by that.
Second thought: Most party leaders in Washington *are* stupid[.]"
-- Peggy Noonan, about Republican losses in 2008
Jeffrey Kaplan
> >ST:E wasn't about "what is new to the audience", it was "what is new to
> >the crew".
>
> Which made for a fairly boring premise, because we knew what was
> coming. About the only surprises were negative ones, e.g., Vulcans who
> didn't behave like Vulcans . . .
Maybe, I continue to withhold judgment on that. Just because what we
got sucked doesn't mean that it had to suck. If Manny Cotto had been
given the reigns from the beginning instead of the end, we probably
would have gotten a very different series.
> > It was set a generation or two +before+ TOS. One of my
> >gripes with it is that they did in fact introduce new and powerful
> >species.
>
> Seems to me that since the galaxy is a large place, they could have
> and should have introduced lots of interesting "one off" powerful
> species, like the Tholians or the tranya guy etc. Major players like
> the Klingons or Romulans are another story. And, really, when they did
> get around to introducing powerful species, they did a lousy job of
> it, they were BEM's rather than something you can believe in. As the
The Xindi. Unless the wrap-up to that hit the reset button so it never
happened in the first place? I gave up on it somewhere halfway through
season two and didn't pick up the series again until about a quarter
through the fourth and final season.
> franchise progressed, the new species became less and less believable
> and conformed more and more to B movie sci fi stereotypes. The
> transformation of the Klingons is a case in point: to me, they were
> interesting and scary when they behaved like Russians, a real enemy,
> in TOS, just a joke after they'd been turned into wookies. And things
> just got worse from there.
And the Romulans remained adversaries. The Klingons were to the
Federation as Russia was to the US, and the Romulans stood in for the
Chinese. The relations between the three in TNG continued to mostly
mirror those of reality.
--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
Double ROT13 encoded for your protection
Peter's Top 100 Things I'd Do If I Ever Became An Evil Overlord, #174.
If I am dangling over a precipice and the hero reaches his hand down
to me, I will not attempt to pull him down with me. I will allow him
to rescue me, thank him properly, then return to the safety of my
fortress and order his execution.
Josh Hill
wrote:
>Maybe, I continue to withhold judgment on that. Just because what we
>got sucked doesn't mean that it had to suck. If Manny Cotto had been
>given the reigns from the beginning instead of the end, we probably
>would have gotten a very different series.
I'm not sure that Cotto actually had the reigns -- in any case, I've
never shared the fondness of everyone else for Season 4, the retro
stuff just didn't float my boat.
>The Xindi. Unless the wrap-up to that hit the reset button so it never
>happened in the first place? I gave up on it somewhere halfway through
>season two and didn't pick up the series again until about a quarter
>through the fourth and final season.
Heh, yes, the Xindi. I managed to get all the way through the show,
not sure how I managed, because I was bored to tears . . .
>And the Romulans remained adversaries. The Klingons were to the
>Federation as Russia was to the US, and the Romulans stood in for the
>Chinese. The relations between the three in TNG continued to mostly
>mirror those of reality.
Sure, but the characterizations were no longer plausible. Too
grotesquely exaggerated. I think it would have been much more
interesting had the Klingons stayed true to form.
Josh Hill
>They jumped from present to past quite a bit, with not very good
>transitions in-between. Even for someone able to see what was going on,
>it felt disjointed. And some of the angles didn't really show me what
>the characters kept telling me they were seeing, especially regarding
>the shuttle venting atmosphere.
Wasn't it supposed to feel that way? One of those things where they
cut between the characters' present and past and the audience
gradually catches on to the pattern . . .
Josh Hill
<kil...@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote:
>"Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com>" wrote, of "Star Trek: Voyager"
>> Neither did I, but I think it's no accident that one of the best
>> episodes was the one with the dinosaurs -- because the cast of Voyager
>> doesn't appear until half way in!
>
>Is it the one where distant descendants of hadrosaurs are running a planet
>and they capture Voyager, and some of the scientists think their species
>evolved on Earth and then emigrated, which goes against the official
>doctrine about how they are from the part of space they're in?
Yes, that's the one.
>Like all Star Trek episodes in which evolution comes up, that one hit
>me like fingers on a blackboard. The Star Trek writers are borderline
>scientifically illiterate, but their absolute worst subject has to be
>evolution. They had an episode of TNG in which atavistic DNA was
>switched by a virus, and a human crewman developed spider-like
>features. But humans and arachnids parted company in the evolutionary
>tree so long ago that no human crewman has spider DNA unless his name
>is Peter Parker. In the Voyager episode (which Wikipedia tells me was
>named "Distant Origin"), they catch one of the aliens and dig around
>in its DNA and Janeway asks "What would a hadrosaur look like if it
>continued to evolve?", and the holodeck cranks out *exactly* the thing
>laying in sickbay -- when "continued to evolve" demonstrates a horrific
>ignorance of how evolution works. There isn't even any way to make the
>question sensible: "What would it's descendants look like if it hadn't
>died out?" is also beyond ridiculous. Sharks have been on the planet
>since before there were any dinosaurs, and they look pretty much the
>same as their ancestors did hundreds of millions of years ago.
The thing that really bugs me (sorry) is when a character's DNA is
altered and he changes overnight. I confess though that I've always
allowed been more tolerant of poetic license in TV science fiction
than in print. A one hour episode just doesn't allow for much by way
of explanation and sophistication, and it has to appeal to a broader
and less technical audience than a novel does. There are
practicalities of production and drama as well -- I mean, most TV
aliens bear a suspicious resemblance to a certain bipedal primate and
an unusual facility with English . . .
>The other thing which Star Trek does drastically wrong is having one
>side be obviously right and the other wrong, producing uninteresting
>morality plays.
>
>So THIS episode combines the two worst elements of Star Trek: they made
>a scientifically ridiculous story which was also a transparently one-
>sided morality play on the evils of rigid doctrinal orthodoxy. Yuk.
I think the episode did many things wrong. But how does this one-sided
morality play differ, except insofar as it's neither as good nor as
clever, from Asimov's "Nightfall"?
Giovanni Wassen
> On Oct 3, 10:53�am, Jon Schild <j...@xmission.com> wrote:
>> One way to express the major difference between TNG and Voyager is that
>> TNG had a few bad episodes, while Voyager had a few good ones.
>
> Or put another way, the bad episodes on "TNG" were rare but tolerable.
> The bad episodes on "Voyager" were predominant, many of which induce
> nausea.
>
> Voyager has, in my humble opinion, the worst Star Trek episode of all
> time: "Threshold" (AKA "Mudpuppies in Love").
Oh yeah, flying at a certain speed will speed up evolution, so it has
nothing to do with environment, it's already hardcoded in your DNA.
--
Gio
http://www.watkijkikoptv.info
http://myanimelist.net/profile/extatix
http://watkijkikoptv.info/animeblog
Jeffrey Kaplan
> >Maybe, I continue to withhold judgment on that. Just because what we
> >got sucked doesn't mean that it had to suck. If Manny Cotto had been
> >given the reigns from the beginning instead of the end, we probably
> >would have gotten a very different series.
>
> I'm not sure that Cotto actually had the reigns -- in any case, I've
> never shared the fondness of everyone else for Season 4, the retro
> stuff just didn't float my boat.
Then why were you watching it at all? The entire series was retro
stuff. That's part and parcel to being a prequel.
--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
Double ROT13 encoded for your protection
Tips for the Evil Henchman: 10. If the hero gives you a chance to
surrender or flee, take it.
Josh Hill
wrote:
>Previously on rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated, Josh Hill said:
>
>> I'm not sure that Cotto actually had the reigns -- in any case, I've
>> never shared the fondness of everyone else for Season 4, the retro
>> stuff just didn't float my boat.
>
>Then why were you watching it at all? The entire series was retro
>stuff. That's part and parcel to being a prequel.
I watched out of a sense of duty. And because as each episode crawled
on, I simply couldn't believe that something interesting wouldn't
happen.
Anyway, I don't think that prequels have to be or should be entirely
retro stuff. Use what you have to for background, but the galaxy is a
vast place. Roddenberry had it just right when he refused to stick a
Vulcan in TNG. He saw the trap, Vulcan of the Week. He didn't want to
repeat, but to boldly go.
Beyond that -- well, if you appeal too much to the fans, you're going
to lose the broader audience a show needs to live long and prosper.
Jeffrey Kaplan
> >Then why were you watching it at all? The entire series was retro
> >stuff. That's part and parcel to being a prequel.
>
> I watched out of a sense of duty. And because as each episode crawled
> on, I simply couldn't believe that something interesting wouldn't
> happen.
>
> Anyway, I don't think that prequels have to be or should be entirely
> retro stuff. Use what you have to for background, but the galaxy is a
> vast place. Roddenberry had it just right when he refused to stick a
> Vulcan in TNG. He saw the trap, Vulcan of the Week. He didn't want to
> repeat, but to boldly go.
That is, IMO, different. Since TNG took place after TOS, they can
expand the sphere of exploration. But Ent took place before TOS.
Ent has smaller and slower ships, perforce limiting how far out they
can go and discover. Plot points were specifically made early on that
this was the first Earth ship capable of going warp 5(?) (when in TOS
it was common to go to 8 or 9 and TNG hit 10 once or twice), that as
this first Enterprise starship went out they were creating a subspace
comms buoy network, and that warp ONE was the most common top speed of
Earth-made ships up to that time.
The series should have been about discovering and filling in gaps in
what we already knew. For example, possible plotlines could/should
have included the wars fought against the Kilingons and the Romulans.
Speaking of the Romulans in Ent, we should never, ever, have actually
seen them. We should only have seen their ships, not the people. Why?
Because in TOS a point was made that no one in the Federation had ever
actually seen one so when Kirk and his bridge crew got the big reveal,
it was a shock that they look exactly like Vulcans.
> Beyond that -- well, if you appeal too much to the fans, you're going
> to lose the broader audience a show needs to live long and prosper.
And if you ignore established continuity, you ruin the show and
alienate the fans who then complain loudly to their friends who then
also stop watching it, thus losing the broader audience. That, plus
the fact that B&B just didn't know how to write the series.
I mostly blame Brennon, as I've seen some other work by Braga that was
at least decent.
--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
Double ROT13 encoded for your protection
"A rational government wouldn't allow him possession of a pocket-
knife, let alone a space fleet." (Cordelia Vorkosigan re: Miles'
sanity [Lois McMaster Bujold, "Mirror Dance"])
Josh Hill
wrote:
>That is, IMO, different. Since TNG took place after TOS, they can
>expand the sphere of exploration. But Ent took place before TOS.
>
>Ent has smaller and slower ships, perforce limiting how far out they
>can go and discover. Plot points were specifically made early on that
>this was the first Earth ship capable of going warp 5(?) (when in TOS
>it was common to go to 8 or 9 and TNG hit 10 once or twice), that as
>this first Enterprise starship went out they were creating a subspace
>comms buoy network, and that warp ONE was the most common top speed of
>Earth-made ships up to that time.
>
>The series should have been about discovering and filling in gaps in
>what we already knew. For example, possible plotlines could/should
>have included the wars fought against the Kilingons and the Romulans.
>
>Speaking of the Romulans in Ent, we should never, ever, have actually
>seen them. We should only have seen their ships, not the people. Why?
>Because in TOS a point was made that no one in the Federation had ever
>actually seen one so when Kirk and his bridge crew got the big reveal,
>it was a shock that they look exactly like Vulcans.
Agree we shouldn't have seen the Romulans, it was a mistake in
(backwards) continuity. I wouldn't have cared if it had been over
something minor, but that was a central issue in the episode that
introduced the Romulans. But then, I don't think anyone's done a very
good take on the Romulans since TOS. They were convincing as what they
were -- Romans, or at least a stereotypically noble Roman. Their
character changed in the later shows and for me it never really
worked, after the Ferengi didn't work out they tried to substitute
them for the Klingons in TNG but it just didn't work very well (though
I confess that the initial appearance of that big green ship was very
cool).
Sphere of exploration: I think we saw 2-1/2 years of the adventures of
one starship, and a few more years of another. Almost every week when
the franchise was in its prime, these ships came across a new and
unknown world and race. Other starships, through multiple generations,
would presumably have come across just as many new and unknown worlds
and races.
After Rodenberry, who refers to the vast number of stars in his
original pitch, the show runners forgot just how inconceivably big the
galaxy is, that stars are like grains of sand on a beach. Even if
starships had been able to go anywhere in the galaxy instantaneously
they would have been able to explore only a miniscule fraction of it.
So you'd always be finding new things, in the beginning as in the end,
assuming you didn't make the creative mistake of so crippling the ship
that it couldn't go anywhere. That was one of the problems with
Enterprise: the ship just wasn't cool.
>> Beyond that -- well, if you appeal too much to the fans, you're going
>> to lose the broader audience a show needs to live long and prosper.
>
>And if you ignore established continuity, you ruin the show and
>alienate the fans who then complain loudly to their friends who then
>also stop watching it, thus losing the broader audience. That, plus
>the fact that B&B just didn't know how to write the series.
>
>I mostly blame Brennon, as I've seen some other work by Braga that was
>at least decent.
I don't know enough about what went on behind the scenes to know who
was responsible for what. I've heard that Braga was fairly Igor-like,
though. And at the very least, Berman bears responsibility as the guy
at the top. He arguably saved TNG as assistant to the failing
Rodenberry, but once he was on his own, things started to go down hill
-- towards the end, TNG seemed to be mostly about playing poker and
getting caught in underground caverns.
Among other things, Trek was an anthology show, and needed a new idea
every week. And a writing staff can't do that, not unless it consists
of JMS, LOL. So Trek became teevee, Perry Mason beating Hamilton
Burger every week, year in and year out.
Kind of a common phenomenon, isn't it? The second-in-command who's
great at being second-in-command, but not captain, because he has a
different set of skills. Look at Microsoft, now that Gates has handed
things over to Ballmer. (Or Spock, when he captains the Galileo . . .
)
Charlie E.
wrote:
>On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 15:21:56 +0000, Jeffrey Kaplan <gor...@gordol.org>
>wrote:
<snip>
>
>Among other things, Trek was an anthology show, and needed a new idea
>every week. And a writing staff can't do that, not unless it consists
>of JMS, LOL. So Trek became teevee, Perry Mason beating Hamilton
>Burger every week, year in and year out.
>
While I watched Enterprise, mostly, it almost seemed to me that the
producers/writers/staff had never really seen TOS, they had just
'heard' about it, and sorta remembered a few names and places, and
then just incorporated them into the background. Just a 'Cliff Notes'
version of TOS to work from.
Now, to do this right, it actually should have had a writing staff,
but with each writer doing a different episode, with different ideas,
concepts and locations. Instead, they just seemed to dumb things
down...
Charlie
Josh Hill
wrote:
>While I watched Enterprise, mostly, it almost seemed to me that the
>producers/writers/staff had never really seen TOS, they had just
>'heard' about it, and sorta remembered a few names and places, and
>then just incorporated them into the background. Just a 'Cliff Notes'
>version of TOS to work from.
>
>Now, to do this right, it actually should have had a writing staff,
>but with each writer doing a different episode, with different ideas,
>concepts and locations. Instead, they just seemed to dumb things
>down...
It was incredibly dumbed down! And obvious. Everyone has their own
idea for a new Trek, but, really, I don't think it much matters *what*
a show does, as long as the writing is clever and their aren't too
many external constraints. I mean, who would have thought someone
would have made a good show out of the original Battlestar Galactica,
or would have wanted to?
Carl Dershem
news:dofhc5pa3h3sauj9s...@gordol.org:
> Previously on rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated, Josh Hill said:
>
>> Voyager and Enterprise suffered from a terminal lack of imagination.
>> Surely you'd find something more interesting and unusual in a new
>> quadrant of the galaxy than latex-nosed space pirates! Deep Space 9,
>> too -- a friend once compared it to a "shopping mall in space." But
>> Deep Space 9 at least had some solid character-driven shows, which
>> partly made up for the lack of sci fi (a wormhole to yet another
>> quadrant and the best they can come up with is silly putty
>> creatures?). And Enterprise couldn't even come up with new latex.
>
> ST:E wasn't about "what is new to the audience", it was "what is new
to
> the crew". It was set a generation or two +before+ TOS. One of my
> gripes with it is that they did in fact introduce new and powerful
> species.
My biggest gripe with it was that it clearly did NOT lead to the other
series.
Well, that and the fact that the writers were soap opera writers, not
SF writers or adventure writers, or GOOD writers...
cd
--
The difference between immorality and immortality is "T". I like Earl
Grey.
Josh Hill
wrote:
>My biggest gripe with it was that it clearly did NOT lead to the other
>series.
>
>Well, that and the fact that the writers were soap opera writers, not
>SF writers or adventure writers, or GOOD writers...
Or if they were, they weren't free to write what they wanted . . .
Carl Dershem
news:fs8lc5hgucgrrj1sv...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 01:20:49 GMT, Carl Dershem <der...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>>My biggest gripe with it was that it clearly did NOT lead to the
other
>>series.
>>
>>Well, that and the fact that the writers were soap opera writers, not
>>SF writers or adventure writers, or GOOD writers...
>
> Or if they were, they weren't free to write what they wanted . . .
Yeah, the producers are definitely to blame in any case. They hired
the writers (and everybody else) on the show.
Vince M Hudd
[Stargate: Universe]
> They [snip-a-bit]. Even for someone able to see what was going on, it
> felt disjointed. And some of the angles didn't really show me what the
> characters kept telling me they were seeing, [snip-a-bit].
That's getting its first broadcast here tonight. :(
--
Vince M Hudd
Soft Rock Software
voxwoman
Stargate:Universe (and the latest season of "Heroes", and any other
show in first run in some market somewhere) needs to be mentioned?
-Wendy
On Oct 6, 6:53 am, Vince M Hudd <s...@softrock.co.uk> wrote:
Josh Hill
wrote:
>I guess a reminder to post spoiler warnings/space for
>Stargate:Universe (and the latest season of "Heroes", and any other
>show in first run in some market somewhere) needs to be mentioned?
Hey Sylar gets good again then he gets bad then he gets good then he
gets bad then he
Oh shit I've just given the whole series away
Mac Breck
> On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 04:28:02 -0700 (PDT), voxwoman <voxw...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I guess a reminder to post spoiler warnings/space for
>> Stargate:Universe (and the latest season of "Heroes", and any other
>> show in first run in some market somewhere) needs to be mentioned?
>
> Hey Sylar gets good again then he gets bad then he gets good then he
> gets bad then he
>
> Oh shit I've just given the whole series away
Yeah, seems that way.
Last night I finished Season 3 (via Netflix DVDs). Couldn't believe
Angela wanted that (Nathan/Sylar). She's got to be *nuts* . That has
trouble written *all* over it. They should have let Nathan be
discovered dead, and killed Sylar once and for all.
Now, I just have to get caught up watching Season 4 Eps. 1 thru 4, which
I (mostly) have on tape, to see how it blows up in their faces. I say
mostly because I missed the first 11 minutes of last night's ep.
--
Mac Breck (KoshN)
-------------------------------
"Babylon 5: Crusade" (1999) - "War Zone"
Galen (to Gideon): "I've been penalized before for helping other
people. I've been trying to decide whether or not I should risk it
again."
Josh Hill
wrote:
>Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:fs8lc5hgucgrrj1sv...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 01:20:49 GMT, Carl Dershem <der...@cox.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>My biggest gripe with it was that it clearly did NOT lead to the
>other
>>>series.
>>>
>>>Well, that and the fact that the writers were soap opera writers, not
>>>SF writers or adventure writers, or GOOD writers...
>>
>> Or if they were, they weren't free to write what they wanted . . .
>
>Yeah, the producers are definitely to blame in any case. They hired
>the writers (and everybody else) on the show.
Yeah, it was so frustrating, all they had to do was hand the show to
JMS . . . but they did the opposite, they drove good people away. Was
it Ron Moore who refused to work on the show because he saw what was
going to happen? And wrote a long essay about it, castigating the
rushed development, etc., online? Don't know where it is but this came
up:
After THE NEXT GENERATION finished its run, Moore moved over to DEEP
SPACE NINE, where he flourished, ending up as co-executive producer.
As DS9 ended, he could not resist the siren call of VOYAGER; he agreed
to join the staff as co-executive producer. Things went terribly wrong
with executive producer Rick Berman and most especially with executive
producer Brannon Braga. Moore explains his use of the term 'they,'
which comes up in much of the conversation. 'My use of 'they' here is
pretty wide. I'm essentially referring to VOYAGER as a creative whole,
but the responsibility for the show and its choices ultimately falls
on the Executive Producers [Braga and Berman].'
Moore says, 'I regret going to the show. I think that was my mistake.
I should have known better. I should have been smart enough to know.
He and I had been partners and friends for so long; 'we can work it
out.' You get into that kind of situation, and things change. Things
changed, and it was a slap of cold water. I think all the other
writers on DS9 knew better. None of them flat out said it. None of
them said, 'You are making a mistake,' and I am not saying that they
should. I wouldn't have listened to it if they did. But I knew at the
time that they all thought this was a mistake.
http://www.mania.com/star-trek-profile-fanwriterproducer-ronald-d-moore_article_18708.html
Whereas everything I've ever seen Berman say on the matter has been
clueless:
About the upcoming movie, Berman only said that will be a prequel with
new characters. While firmly believing STAR TREK will return to
television, he said the franchise's sensibility may be out of step
with the times.
"We made a great effort to keep [Gene] Roddenberry's vision of the
future in mind," Mr. Berman said. "Has that attitude played itself
out? It could very well be true."
http://www.trekunited.com/community/index.php?showtopic=2456&pid=47589&mode=threaded&start=
Hollywood thinking at its second worst (after "I have this role
because I'm screwing the producer," which I understand caused some
fairly bad feelings on the Voyager set).
Josh Hill
<macthe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Yeah, seems that way.
>
>Last night I finished Season 3 (via Netflix DVDs). Couldn't believe
>Angela wanted that (Nathan/Sylar). She's got to be *nuts* . That has
>trouble written *all* over it. They should have let Nathan be
>discovered dead, and killed Sylar once and for all.
>
>Now, I just have to get caught up watching Season 4 Eps. 1 thru 4, which
>I (mostly) have on tape, to see how it blows up in their faces. I say
>mostly because I missed the first 11 minutes of last night's ep.
I was pleasantly surprised by the first Season 4 episode. I'd actually
given up on it last year and had to go back afterwards and watch the
Season 3 finale. Episodes two and three were watchable as well. I
think they know they have to get the show on track, stop jumping
around, focus on the characters and a good tense situation. I'm
guessing we'll see the company again, and Sylar back to his old self.
Dunno whether they can make him scary again at this point, or the
company -- they've demythologized everything way too much.
voxwoman
> On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 09:17:46 -0400, "Mac Breck"
>
SPOILER ALERT
*
*
*
*
*
I am enjoying watching "Heroes:Galactica" with Parkman's invisible
Sylar in his head
And also "Stargate:Lost In Space (Galactica)" - I thought the pilot
was a "page turner"
-Wendy
Mark Bertenshaw
> On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 13:29:49 -0400, Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 15:21:56 +0000, Jeffrey Kaplan <gor...@gordol.org>
>> wrote:
> <snip>
>> Among other things, Trek was an anthology show, and needed a new idea
>> every week. And a writing staff can't do that, not unless it consists
>> of JMS, LOL. So Trek became teevee, Perry Mason beating Hamilton
>> Burger every week, year in and year out.
>>
>
> While I watched Enterprise, mostly, it almost seemed to me that the
> producers/writers/staff had never really seen TOS, they had just
> 'heard' about it, and sorta remembered a few names and places, and
> then just incorporated them into the background. Just a 'Cliff Notes'
> version of TOS to work from.
I think that by the time that ST:TNG got into its mid period, the
mythology had definitely become about ST:TNG rather than original ST.
Having said that, I found the "feel" of the first season so unlike the
original, I nearly stopped watching due to my disappointment. But
ironically, the program didn't start getting consistently good until
sometime around season 2 - 3. Since this coincides with Gene Roddenbery
being sidelined, I can only conclude that he was the reason why the
program was so dull at the beginning. I've never understood the
lionisation that man got. He hit the jackpot with Star Trek, but did he
really move on to do something creative afterwards (unlike JMS, for
example - just to get on topic!) ?
As for the rest of the franchise, I really loved Deep Space 9, but
probably because it was a shadow of our favourite show. I despised
Voyager, and unlike TNG, I never bothered following it on the off-chance
there was a good episode. Enterprise had its moments: more of a lost
opportunity, although I wish I had seen more of the last season.
--
Mark Bertenshaw
Lance Corporal "Hammer" Schultz
> SPOILER ALERT
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> I am enjoying watching "Heroes:Galactica" with Parkman's invisible
> Sylar in his head
>
> And also "Stargate:Lost In Space (Galactica)" - I thought the pilot
> was a "page turner"
The Last BattleStargate Voyager.
--
Lance Corporal "Hammer" Schultz
Promote someone else.
Mac Breck
I despised DS9 for many reasons (having to do with the show itself,
*not* its imitation of B5.), and IMHO it didn't hold a candle to our
favorite show (B5).
> I despised Voyager,
Likewise, and I dislike it when people liken "Crusade" to "Voyager."
> and unlike TNG, I never bothered following it on the
> off-chance there was a good episode.
I think there are about six good episodes.
> Enterprise had its moments:
> more of a lost opportunity, although I wish I had seen more of the
> last season.
I liked Seasons 3 & 4 of "Enterprise" the most, except for the last 7
minutes of the S3 finale and the S4/Series finale. You could do what I
did, and rent Season 4 (e.g. Netflix). Just stop after watching "Terra
Prime." Avoid the S4 finale. It's a Berman & Braga travesty.
Josh Hill
wrote:
>SPOILER ALERT
>*
>*
>*
>*
>*
>I am enjoying watching "Heroes:Galactica" with Parkman's invisible
>Sylar in his head
>
>And also "Stargate:Lost In Space (Galactica)" - I thought the pilot
>was a "page turner"
LOL, yeah, I noticed the Stargate parallels but hadn't thought about
Sylar.
I'm wondering what shoddy trick they'll use to bring back Nathan once
Sylar gets his body back -- I mean, in that show, people don't just
come back from the dead once, they come back more often than Cylons .
.. .
Josh Hill
<mark.be...@virgin.net> wrote:
>I think that by the time that ST:TNG got into its mid period, the
>mythology had definitely become about ST:TNG rather than original ST.
>Having said that, I found the "feel" of the first season so unlike the
>original, I nearly stopped watching due to my disappointment. But
>ironically, the program didn't start getting consistently good until
>sometime around season 2 - 3. Since this coincides with Gene Roddenbery
>being sidelined, I can only conclude that he was the reason why the
>program was so dull at the beginning. I've never understood the
>lionisation that man got. He hit the jackpot with Star Trek, but did he
>really move on to do something creative afterwards (unlike JMS, for
>example - just to get on topic!) ?
Roddenbery was ill and drinking heavily at the time TNG began; I hate
to say it but "useless drunk" was the description I was given by a
friend who met him when a company I worked for bid on the TNG effects.
As I understand it, this was because he was in terrible pain and
alcohol was the least impairing option open to him. Anyway, for
whatever reasons, they were short on good story material at first, and
Roddenbery had a conflict with DC Fontana, who left the show.
What Roddenbery did do I think was create the show and establish the
parameters that kept the show Trek rather than Voyager or Enterprise,
or even the reasonably decent but less Trek-like (and stolen from JMS)
DS 9. The execution was largely left to others, but the concept was
his, as I understand it taken from the aborted reboot of the original
series (if only . . . ). And the insistence that the show not repeat
itself or forget it was set in the future and a huge galaxy was his.
The sense I have is that Rick Berman was an apt lieutenant, but failed
as a captain.
Paul Hahn
> On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 01:20:49 GMT, Carl Dershem <der...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>> My biggest gripe with it was that it clearly did NOT lead to the other
>> series.
>>
>> Well, that and the fact that the writers were soap opera writers, not
>> SF writers or adventure writers, or GOOD writers...
>
> Or if they were, they weren't free to write what they wanted . . .
From http://www.jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-7864 (this is in 1996):
| If there's a problem with Voyager -- and I'm not saying there is, because
| I haven't seen enough of it to form a valid opinion -- it's due to the
| situation that has always pertained to ST: they make the writers there write
| with mittens on, and won't let them cut loose with the kinds of stories they
| COULD do, for fear of doing something controversial that might hurt "The
| Franchise." I've said it elsewhere and will repeat it again: I know the folks
| they've got over there, and if Paramount ever backed off and let them do what
| they're *capable* of doing, they'd blow the doors off of SF television.
--
--pH <many...@wustl.edu> http://library.wustl.edu/~manynote
We need a voting system that avoids vote-splitting, reduces the
incentive to compromise, and encourages the growth of third parties!
See http://radicalcentrism.org/majority_voting.html
Josh Hill
<many...@wustl.edu> wrote:
>On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Josh Hill wrote:
>>
>> Or if they were, they weren't free to write what they wanted . . .
>
>From http://www.jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-7864 (this is in 1996):
>
>| If there's a problem with Voyager -- and I'm not saying there is, because
>| I haven't seen enough of it to form a valid opinion -- it's due to the
>| situation that has always pertained to ST: they make the writers there write
>| with mittens on, and won't let them cut loose with the kinds of stories they
>| COULD do, for fear of doing something controversial that might hurt "The
>| Franchise." I've said it elsewhere and will repeat it again: I know the folks
>| they've got over there, and if Paramount ever backed off and let them do what
>| they're *capable* of doing, they'd blow the doors off of SF television.
That's an interesting post overall . . . and this tends to reinforce
my suspicions regarding the role of the powers that be in Enterprise
(which are based largely on fragmentary back-channel info from someone
who was pitching the show). Though re Voyager I'd add to the problems
high level decisions to ignore continuity and repair the ship on a
weekly basis, as well as the loss of Ron Moore, bad casting, the
sudden loss of the series star, bad chemistry on the set, and the
allegation that Actress X received favorable treatment because she was
boffing Producer Y, a situation which seems to be about as unusual in
Hollywood as the presence of sprocket holes, LOL.
Jeffrey Kaplan
> series (if only . . . ). And the insistence that the show not repeat
> itself or forget it was set in the future and a huge galaxy was his.
"Not repeat itself"? IIRC, several episodes in the first season or two
were direct rewrites of TOS episodes.
--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
Double ROT13 encoded for your protection
Tips for the Evil Henchman: 7. Learn to distinguish Heroes from
Sidekicks. Heroes are usually taller and more somber, while Sidekicks
dress with more flair and tell more jokes. Taking on the Hero when you
only have enough manpower/firepower to take on the Sidekick will earn
you an all-expenses-paid trip on Stygian Cruise Lines.
Josh Hill
wrote:
>Previously on rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated, Josh Hill said:
>
>> series (if only . . . ). And the insistence that the show not repeat
>> itself or forget it was set in the future and a huge galaxy was his.
>
>"Not repeat itself"? IIRC, several episodes in the first season or two
>were direct rewrites of TOS episodes.
Yeah, I remember a couple of episodes like that. Not good. They seemed
seriously hard up for material.
And, of course, the ship, crew, and mission were basically just a
variation on the original.
As I understand it, what Rodenberry insisted on was the likes of no
Vulcans.
Mark Bertenshaw
>
> I liked Seasons 3 & 4 of "Enterprise" the most, except for the last 7
> minutes of the S3 finale and the S4/Series finale. You could do what I
> did, and rent Season 4 (e.g. Netflix). Just stop after watching "Terra
> Prime." Avoid the S4 finale. It's a Berman & Braga travesty.
>
Sadly, that was one of the few episodes I *did* see. Absolute garbage.
--
Mark
Dr Nancy's Sweetie
> I've never understood the lionisation that [ Gene Roddenberry ] got.
> He hit the jackpot with Star Trek, but did he really move on to do
> something creative afterwards (unlike JMS, for example - just to get
> on topic!) ?
Interesting. I've had the same thought about George Lucas, who got
really lucky with "Star Wars", wisely left the direction and screenplay
jobs to somebody else for the sequels. Then he decided he was some
sort of genius, so he did "The Phantom Menace" all by himself (writer
and director both). He also changed "Star Wars" so that Greedo shot
first, and he changed "The Empire Strikes Back" so that Luke screams
as he falls away from Vader. So it was clear he didn't even understand
what was so powerful about his own earlier movies. It was pure luck he
got those scenes right the first time.
And the worst of it is that ANYBODY would have been willing to work on
them! In my fantasy-parallel-universe, Lucas hands off his basic story
arc to Lois McMaster Bujold, who fleshes out the stories and writes the
novelizations for the three films. Then JMS does the screenplays and
James Cameron directs (though I'm thinking here of "The Terminator" and
"Aliens", not "The Abyss").
> As for the rest of the franchise, I really loved Deep Space 9, but
> probably because it was a shadow of our favourite show.
DS9 suffered badly because they made up an overall story arc which, in
the end, didn't make any sense at all. 7 years of circumlocutions and
a specially-arranged nativity for the Emissary just so they can throw a
stupid book into a fire? If ever you doubted the Prophets were
worthless idiots, that conclusion put an end to them. It had "We made
all this stuff up and we have no idea how to finish it" quality to it,
not to mention the horribly derivative "Go into a volcano with an
Important Artifact and throw it in" aspect. (I note that the recently
ended "Battlestar Galactica" also had a conclusion which made little
sense, being more a "gotta wrap this up" than anything else.)
> I despised Voyager, and unlike TNG, I never bothered following it on the
> off-chance there was a good episode. Enterprise had its moments: more of
> a lost opportunity, although I wish I had seen more of the last season.
At the end, I only watched them to enjoy the on-line discussions which
followed. Some of the MST3K treatments of the episodes were hilarious.
Darren Provine ! kil...@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"I've been stalked, married, divorced, given birth, shot, killed by two
different husbands; I've had brain surgery, a heart condition, nervous
breakdown, blind, deaf, amnesia; I've been twins, and (my favorite)
I've come back from the dead and killed my husband's mistress."
-- Melissa Gilbert, on her 28 TV movies
Mac Breck
Have Lyta give you a mindwipe, watch "Terra Prime" again, and stop right
there. Problem solved. :-)
Josh Hill
<kil...@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote:
>Interesting. I've had the same thought about George Lucas, who got
>really lucky with "Star Wars", wisely left the direction and screenplay
>jobs to somebody else for the sequels. Then he decided he was some
>sort of genius, so he did "The Phantom Menace" all by himself (writer
>and director both). He also changed "Star Wars" so that Greedo shot
>first, and he changed "The Empire Strikes Back" so that Luke screams
>as he falls away from Vader. So it was clear he didn't even understand
>what was so powerful about his own earlier movies. It was pure luck he
>got those scenes right the first time.
>
>And the worst of it is that ANYBODY would have been willing to work on
>them! In my fantasy-parallel-universe, Lucas hands off his basic story
>arc to Lois McMaster Bujold, who fleshes out the stories and writes the
>novelizations for the three films. Then JMS does the screenplays and
>James Cameron directs (though I'm thinking here of "The Terminator" and
>"Aliens", not "The Abyss").
Whatever his shortcomings as a director, Lucas has fairly stunning
credentials: THX-1138, American Graffiti, the Star Wars series, his
role in the Indiana Jones series. It seems unlikely to me that this
was all luck, any more than Star Trek was -- Roddenbery had a very
strong vision of Trek, and a lot of thought and passion went into its
creation. It's also worth noting re Roddenbery that when, after a
dispute with NBC, he walked off the original series, it went to hell
-- most or all of the horrible episodes like Spock's Brain date from
that final Roddenberyless season.
Lucas's unfortunate change to the Greedo scene seems to me a moral
decision, rather than an artistic one. I'm not sure it can be said
that he didn't understand the artistic purpose of having Solo shoot
first -- after all, he came up with it.
Arguably, what makes some artists special has as much to do with their
perceived shortcomings as with their strengths, and with their
willingness to take risks at the risk of mistakes. Moby Dick would be
a better adventure story in the absence of its philosophical musings,
but it would be forgotten as well. And if Dickens had been a realist?
Or Joyce written conventional narratives? What if "2001" had been
packed with witty dialog, bombastic film music, and shoot-'em-up
action? Probably would have been a hit at the box office, but
Kubrick's decision to discard those conventional elements made it
something more . . . And what if Babylon 5 hadn't had a five-year
story arc, or Star Trek had been a formulaic teevee show like Lost in
Space?
Josh Hill
<many...@wustl.edu> wrote:
>On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Josh Hill wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 01:20:49 GMT, Carl Dershem <der...@cox.net>
>> wrote:
>>> Well, that and the fact that the writers were soap opera writers, not
>>> SF writers or adventure writers, or GOOD writers...
>>
>> Or if they were, they weren't free to write what they wanted . . .
>
>From http://www.jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-7864 (this is in 1996):
>
>| If there's a problem with Voyager -- and I'm not saying there is, because
>| I haven't seen enough of it to form a valid opinion -- it's due to the
>| situation that has always pertained to ST: they make the writers there write
>| with mittens on, and won't let them cut loose with the kinds of stories they
>| COULD do, for fear of doing something controversial that might hurt "The
>| Franchise." I've said it elsewhere and will repeat it again: I know the folks
>| they've got over there, and if Paramount ever backed off and let them do what
>| they're *capable* of doing, they'd blow the doors off of SF television.
By way of a postscript, I asked a friend in a position to know about
what went down on Enterprise and he said that "There's no question
that Berman kneecapped the whole shebang," and that Braga was even
worse than Berman.
Wes Struebing
Hmm. While I did try to watch several episodes, the only one I can
sort of remember is the one that came out right after "Mind War".
Kes(?) "evolves" - so like Ironheart, and so poorly done...<sigh>
Did it ever get any better?
--
Wes Struebing
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
Homepage: www.carpedementem.org
linkedin profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/wesstruebing
voxwoman
wrote:
> "Mark Bertenshaw <mark.bertens...@virgin.net>" wrote:
> > I've never understood the lionisation that [ Gene Roddenberry ] got.
> > He hit the jackpot with Star Trek, but did he really move on to do
> > something creative afterwards (unlike JMS, for example - just to get
> > on topic!) ?
>
> Interesting. I've had the same thought about George Lucas, who got
> really lucky with "Star Wars", wisely left the direction and screenplay
> jobs to somebody else for the sequels.
I believe Lawrence Kasdan is credited with the screenplay for "Star
Wars" (AKA "A New Hope")
-Wendy
Mac Breck
> On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:23:29 +0100, Mark Bertenshaw
> <mark.be...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
>> Mac Breck wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I liked Seasons 3 & 4 of "Enterprise" the most, except for the last
>>> 7 minutes of the S3 finale and the S4/Series finale. You could do
>>> what I did, and rent Season 4 (e.g. Netflix). Just stop after
>>> watching "Terra Prime." Avoid the S4 finale. It's a Berman &
>>> Braga travesty.
>>>
>>
>> Sadly, that was one of the few episodes I *did* see. Absolute
>> garbage.
>
> Hmm. While I did try to watch several episodes, the only one I can
> sort of remember is the one that came out right after "Mind War".
>
> Kes(?) "evolves" - so like Ironheart, and so poorly done...<sigh>
>
> Did it ever get any better?
You're talking *Voyager* but *we're* talking *Star* *Trek* :
*Enterprise* .
John W Kennedy
> Voyager has, in my humble opinion, the worst Star Trek episode of all
> time: "Threshold" (AKA "Mudpuppies in Love").
Nonsense. The worst was the nauseating "Enterprise" episode, "Dear
Doctor", or, "The Great Evolution God Orders Holy Genocide".
Dan Dassow
John,
I consider myself truly fortunate that I did not see that episode of
"Enterprise". If "Mudpuppies in Love" is akin to having a spike driven
into one's skull, I shudder to think what it would be like to endure
"The Great Evolution God Orders Holy Genocide".
Dan Dassow
First Circle of the Kha'Ri
> Entertainment Weekly has listed its Top 25 science fiction television
> shows - B5 comes in at #13, much too low (of course!) but I did
> appreciate the comments:
>
> 13. BABYLON 5
> (1993-1998)
> While I've never been an overwhelmingly huge fan of J. Michael
> Straczynski's interstellar sci-fi series set on the nexus-like space
> station of the title, I've always appreciated it. It's not every day -
> or every decade - that genre fans get a densely plotted,
> character-heavy series that doesn't pander to the lowest common
> denominator and manages to run for exactly as long as its creator
> intended. If that was all Babylon 5 did, there'd be cause for
> celebration. But that it also managed to be good...heck, champagne all
> around. -Marc Bernardin
>
> http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20302134_20308150_8,00.html
>
> -----
>
> Iva
I totally disagree with so many of the comments posted here. I think
Voyager was a great show. Anyone who can defend Stargate, but diss
Voyager just hasn't watched either. Stargate is purile, and much of
Voyager is also. But Voyager's production quality and storylines are
far superior than anything Stargate produced.
Granted, these are all a matter of taste, but Star Trek does deserve
the no. 1 spot since it has inspired so much of Sci-Fi today. In fact,
it's become such a part of every day life that when you see other sci-
fi shows that "borrow" trek language or concepts, it's not even out of
the ordinary.
However, I understand why they would put Twilight Zone in number 1
spot. Many of the sci-fi writers today were inspired by shows like
that, and in particular the TZ, including JMS.
But to say that Battlestar Galactica (reimagined new show) is bad is
clearly telling me you haven't seen it. Even to a committed fan of
Star Trek, Babylon 5, Twilight Zone and somewhat of a fan of Stargate,
Battlestar is leaps and bounds superior in every single way. It is
without doubt the best SciFi show ever produced.
D
Abigail Brady
> I believe Lawrence Kasdan is credited with the screenplay for "Star
> Wars" (AKA "A New Hope")
He is not. Lucas wrote that. Kasdan shares writer credit on Empire
Strikes Back (with Leigh Brackett) and Return of the Jedi (with
Lucas).
--
Abi
Amy Guskin
(in article
<1df8ca34-0929-4bd1...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>):
>
> But to say that Battlestar Galactica (reimagined new show) is bad is
> clearly telling me you haven't seen it. Even to a committed fan of
> Star Trek, Babylon 5, Twilight Zone and somewhat of a fan of Stargate,
> Battlestar is leaps and bounds superior in every single way. It is
> without doubt the best SciFi show ever produced. <<
I'll agree that it started out as a great show, but a few seasons before the
end they started losing the ability to plot coherently, and it was clear that
rather than working from a fully-established storyline, they were just making
shit up as they went along. Oh, and then there's the craptastically terrible
series ending, which didn't help.
Amy
--
Ten Thousand Questions
A Question a Day for Journaling, Self-Discovery, and Transformation
"2009 is the Year of Questions"
tenthousandquestions.com
Vince M Hudd
> I totally disagree with so many of the comments posted here. I think
> Voyager was a great show. Anyone who can defend Stargate, but diss Voyager
> just hasn't watched either.
I have, and I can. Stargate SG:1 was miles better than the awful Star Trek
Voyager.
In fact, I think anyone who can defend Voyager, but diss Stargate just
hasn't watched either.*
*I assume that gets the point over. ;)
--
Vince M Hudd
Soft Rock Software
Matt Ion
By the point Voyager had three ham-handed time-travel stories within the
first season, I was pretty much done with it. Stargate was several
years in before they attempted their time-travel two-parter, and they
managed to handle it pretty well (very WWE-like, IMO).
Josh Hill
wrote:
>> But to say that Battlestar Galactica (reimagined new show) is bad is
>> clearly telling me you haven't seen it. Even to a committed fan of
>> Star Trek, Babylon 5, Twilight Zone and somewhat of a fan of Stargate,
>> Battlestar is leaps and bounds superior in every single way. It is
>> without doubt the best SciFi show ever produced. <<
>
>I'll agree that it started out as a great show, but a few seasons before the
>end they started losing the ability to plot coherently, and it was clear that
>rather than working from a fully-established storyline, they were just making
>shit up as they went along. Oh, and then there's the craptastically terrible
>series ending, which didn't help.
Also -- this wasn't their fault -- the suits told them at some point
to make the show less grim. And for a season, they were forced to do
just that, until the suits realized their mistake and let them go back
to what they had been doing.
Josh Hill
wrote:
Yeah, I agree. Voyager was dismal. Stargate was excellent in its first
seasons, gradually faded as it was dumbed down to become more
action-adventure and less Trek, faded more when a lead quit in
disgust, faded even more when it lost the main lead, and jumped the
shark completely when they made the mistake of defeating their
villains and introduced new and silly ones. Not to mention that
annoying thief woman. There should be a law against science fiction
thief women, the only thing worse is a child on the bridge.
Jan
>
> There should be a law against science fiction
>thief women, the only thing worse is a child on the bridge.
>
Hey, waitaminit! You can't condemn all 'thief women'. I personally liked
Dureena in Crusade a lot.
Jan
--
�Shared pain is lessened; shared joy is increased; thus do we refute entropy�
--Spider Robinson
Check out http://wedreamforjeanne.blogspot.com/ for ways to help Jeanne Robinson
fight cancer.
Josh Hill
>In article <effsc59jbkqmj5kj8...@4ax.com>, Josh Hill says...
>>
>> There should be a law against science fiction
>>thief women, the only thing worse is a child on the bridge.
>>
>
>Hey, waitaminit! You can't condemn all 'thief women'. I personally liked
>Dureena in Crusade a lot.
I confess I was thinking of Dureena as well . . .
Carl Dershem
> In article <effsc59jbkqmj5kj8...@4ax.com>, Josh Hill
> says...
>>
>> There should be a law against science fiction
>>thief women, the only thing worse is a child on the bridge.
>>
>
> Hey, waitaminit! You can't condemn all 'thief women'. I personally
> liked Dureena in Crusade a lot.
>
> Jan
And she was also very nice (and VERY pretty) in person.
cd
--
The difference between immorality and immortality is "T". I like Earl
Grey.
John W Kennedy
<dario.todoro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I totally disagree with so many of the comments posted here. I think
> Voyager was a great show. Anyone who can defend Stargate, but diss
> Voyager just hasn't watched either.
Oh, that Gharlane were here!
Wes Struebing
<macthe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Wes Struebing wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:23:29 +0100, Mark Bertenshaw
>> <mark.be...@virgin.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Mac Breck wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I liked Seasons 3 & 4 of "Enterprise" the most, except for the last
>>>> 7 minutes of the S3 finale and the S4/Series finale. You could do
>>>> what I did, and rent Season 4 (e.g. Netflix). Just stop after
>>>> watching "Terra Prime." Avoid the S4 finale. It's a Berman &
>>>> Braga travesty.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sadly, that was one of the few episodes I *did* see. Absolute
>>> garbage.
>>
>> Hmm. While I did try to watch several episodes, the only one I can
>> sort of remember is the one that came out right after "Mind War".
>>
>> Kes(?) "evolves" - so like Ironheart, and so poorly done...<sigh>
>>
>> Did it ever get any better?
>
>You're talking *Voyager* but *we're* talking *Star* *Trek* :
>*Enterprise* .
Oh, sorry. "Voyager" was earlier in the thread. Can't comment on
"Enterprise", never having watched it.
Wes Struebing
wrote:
>>> On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 04:33:02 -0400, First Circle of the Kha'Ri wrote
>(in article
><1df8ca34-0929-4bd1...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>):
>
>>
>> But to say that Battlestar Galactica (reimagined new show) is bad is
>> clearly telling me you haven't seen it. Even to a committed fan of
>> Star Trek, Babylon 5, Twilight Zone and somewhat of a fan of Stargate,
>> Battlestar is leaps and bounds superior in every single way. It is
>> without doubt the best SciFi show ever produced. <<
>
>I'll agree that it started out as a great show, but a few seasons before the
>end they started losing the ability to plot coherently, and it was clear that
>rather than working from a fully-established storyline, they were just making
>shit up as they went along. Oh, and then there's the craptastically terrible
>series ending, which didn't help.
>
Well, it comes from programming on the fly, Amy (which
what's-their-names basically confessed to)
Wes Struebing
wrote:
>On 8 Oct 2009 15:47:43 -0700, Jan <janmsc...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <effsc59jbkqmj5kj8...@4ax.com>, Josh Hill says...
>>>
>>> There should be a law against science fiction
>>>thief women, the only thing worse is a child on the bridge.
>>>
>>
>>Hey, waitaminit! You can't condemn all 'thief women'. I personally liked
>>Dureena in Crusade a lot.
>
>I confess I was thinking of Dureena as well . . .
I think of Dureena, sometimes, too. (sigh...)
Duggy
George is credited writer of A New Hope. He is also credited as
writing the novelisation, although that was actually Alan Dean Foster.
Lawrence was one of the people the sequels were left to.
===
= DUG.
===
Mac Breck
> On Oct 1, 9:03 am, "Iva" <i...@ptd.net> wrote:
>> Entertainment Weekly has listed its Top 25 science fiction television
>> shows - B5 comes in at #13, much too low (of course!) but I did
>> appreciate the comments:
>>
>> 13. BABYLON 5
>> (1993-1998)
>> While I've never been an overwhelmingly huge fan of J. Michael
>> Straczynski's interstellar sci-fi series set on the nexus-like space
>> station of the title, I've always appreciated it. It's not every day
>> - or every decade - that genre fans get a densely plotted,
>> character-heavy series that doesn't pander to the lowest common
>> denominator and manages to run for exactly as long as its creator
>> intended. If that was all Babylon 5 did, there'd be cause for
>> celebration. But that it also managed to be good...heck, champagne
>> all around. -Marc Bernardin
>>
>> http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20302134_20308150_8,00.html
>>
>> -----
>>
>> Iva
>
> I totally disagree with so many of the comments posted here.
> I think Voyager was a great show.
I think Voyager was an awful show, populated with some awful characters,
and with storylines that went nowhere (mostly). They were also known
for beating ideas to death, and then they'd beat them after they were
long dead. If I hear Janeway going on and on about 7 of 9's humanity
one more time, I'm going to hurl.
> Anyone who can defend Stargate, but diss
> Voyager just hasn't watched either.
Baloney. I watched 100% of Stargate SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis, and the
first four years of Voyager and a smattering of the last three years of
Voyager. I could not watch all of Voyager because it made me want to
hurl. :-(*) (Voyager brings that out in me.)
> Stargate is purile,
Did you mean *puerile* ?
-adjective 1. of or pertaining to a child or to childhood.
2. childishly foolish; immature or trivial: a puerile piece of writing.
> and much of
> Voyager is also. But Voyager's production quality and storylines
> are far superior than anything Stargate produced.
Far superior? No, I disagree. Superior? No, I *still* disagree.
Voyager was the same old *tired* Trek stuff we've seen in 3 years of
TOS, 7 years of TNG and 7 years of DS9. I *vastly* prefer SG-1 and SG-A
to Voyager. At least SG-1 and SG-A had likeable characters.
> Granted, these are all a matter of taste, but Star Trek does deserve
> the no. 1 spot since it has inspired so much of Sci-Fi today. In fact,
> it's become such a part of every day life that when you see other
> Sci-fi shows that "borrow" trek language or concepts, it's not
> even out of the ordinary.
>
> However, I understand why they would put Twilight Zone in number
> 1 spot. Many of the sci-fi writers today were inspired by shows like
> that, and in particular the TZ, including JMS.
>
> But to say that Battlestar Galactica (reimagined new show) is bad is
> clearly telling me you haven't seen it.
Again, Baloney! I've seen Battlestar Galactica (reimagined new show)
Miniseries thru Season 3 and Razor. At that point, I so disliked it
that I sold my DVDs. I haven't seen Season 4 (everything post-Razor),
due to complete lack of interest. Don't get me wrong, there were things
I liked about the show, but it got worse and worse with every season.
Finally, I reached the point where it wasn't worth my time to watch it
anymore.
> Even to a committed fan of Star Trek, Babylon 5,
> Twilight Zone and somewhat of a fan of Stargate,
> Battlestar is leaps and bounds superior in every single way. It is
> without doubt the best SciFi show ever produced.
My comment on that is <rolleyes> :-(*)
Yes, that literally turns my stomach.
Mac Breck
I'm sure that praise of Voyager and dissing of Stargate post had him up
to about 100,000 rpm in his grave.
Mac Breck
> On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 19:10:57 -0400, Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 8 Oct 2009 15:47:43 -0700, Jan <janmsc...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <effsc59jbkqmj5kj8...@4ax.com>, Josh Hill
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>> There should be a law against science fiction
>>>> thief women, the only thing worse is a child on the bridge.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hey, waitaminit! You can't condemn all 'thief women'. I
>>> personally liked Dureena in Crusade a lot.
>>
>> I confess I was thinking of Dureena as well . . .
>
> I think of Dureena, sometimes, too. (sigh...)
I miss pretty much the whole "Crusade" cast.
Mac Breck
> On 8 Oct 2009 15:47:43 -0700, Jan <janmsc...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <effsc59jbkqmj5kj8...@4ax.com>, Josh Hill
>> says...
>>>
>>> There should be a law against science fiction
>>> thief women, the only thing worse is a child on the bridge.
>>>
>>
>> Hey, waitaminit! You can't condemn all 'thief women'. I personally
>> liked Dureena in Crusade a lot.
>
> I confess I was thinking of Dureena as well . . .
Bah! Dureena was a good character and well played by the actress, but
not so much in "A Call to Arms" as in "Crusade." She was much better in
"Crusade."
Mac Breck
> In article <effsc59jbkqmj5kj8...@4ax.com>, Josh Hill
> says...
>>
>> There should be a law against science fiction
>> thief women, the only thing worse is a child on the bridge.
>>
>
> Hey, waitaminit! You can't condemn all 'thief women'. I personally
> liked Dureena in Crusade a lot.
>
> Jan
Same here!
Mac Breck
> John W Kennedy wrote:
>> On Oct 8, 4:33 am, "First Circle of the Kha'Ri"
>> <dario.todoro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I totally disagree with so many of the comments posted here. I think
>>> Voyager was a great show. Anyone who can defend Stargate, but diss
>>> Voyager just hasn't watched either.
>>
>> Oh, that Gharlane were here!
>
> I'm sure that praise of Voyager and dissing of Stargate post had him
> up to about 100,000 rpm in his grave.
Second thought, I should have said:
"I'm sure that praise of Voyager post had him up to about 100,000 rpm in
his grave." IIRC, he wasn't crazy about Stargate, but he couldn't stand
Voyager. The last email I have from him is dated June 1, 2001. He
passed beyond the rim not long after that, so he only could have seen
Seasons 1 thru 4 of SG-1, and none of Stargate Atlantis. Man, I didn't
realize he's been gone that long. <sigh>
Here's what he sent me in one of his April 2001 emails. I don't think
he'd mind me sharing it.
"7,200 words for four chapters, will probably cut to around 6800 on
trim pass and rewrite. Nice blizzard here last night ( at about
4820 feet on the east side of the Sierras, and while I was out
walking around in the midnight blizzard, I noticed several happy
coyotes lollygagging around the place. They weren't singing,
just running around in the snow playing grab-tail and yipping
a bit. Very refreshing break, nice to see I wasn't the only
one up. I almost managed to hit one with a snowball, but he
dodged way too fast. Then nothing would have it but that I
had to throw snowballs for the rest of them to dodge. some
folks just work way too hard having a good time."
:-)
Carl Dershem
news:iaSdnfgWPtpBM1PX...@supernews.com:
>> Even to a committed fan of Star Trek, Babylon 5,
>> Twilight Zone and somewhat of a fan of Stargate,
>> Battlestar is leaps and bounds superior in every single way. It is
>> without doubt the best SciFi show ever produced.
>
> My comment on that is <rolleyes> :-(*)
> Yes, that literally turns my stomach.
Agreed.
Dan Dassow
That would indeed have been fun, but we would have to scrub the ichor
off the floor, walls and ceiling. :-)
Dan Dassow
Kathryn Huxtable
I think she meant *purell*, an antibacterial product.
>> But to say that Battlestar Galactica (reimagined new show) is bad is
>> clearly telling me you haven't seen it.
>
> Again, Baloney! I've seen Battlestar Galactica (reimagined new show)
> Miniseries thru Season 3 and Razor. At that point, I so disliked it
> that I sold my DVDs. I haven't seen Season 4 (everything post-Razor),
> due to complete lack of interest. Don't get me wrong, there were things
> I liked about the show, but it got worse and worse with every season.
> Finally, I reached the point where it wasn't worth my time to watch it
> anymore.
I made the mistake of buying the first half of season 4 before selling
my DVDs. I also liked things about the show, and thought the first
couple of seasons were pretty good, but then they jumped the shark,
IMHO. I *hated* the concept of the final five. It came out of nowhere
and that's where it should have stayed.
>> Even to a committed fan of Star Trek, Babylon 5, Twilight Zone and
>> somewhat of a fan of Stargate, Battlestar is leaps and bounds
>> superior in every single way. It is without doubt the best SciFi show
>> ever produced.
>
> My comment on that is <rolleyes> :-(*)
> Yes, that literally turns my stomach.
Yep. Mine, too.
-K, getting back to work before my stomache turns more.
Alan Dicey
> In article <effsc59jbkqmj5kj8...@4ax.com>, Josh Hill says...
>> There should be a law against science fiction
>> thief women, the only thing worse is a child on the bridge.
>>
>
> Hey, waitaminit! You can't condemn all 'thief women'. I personally liked
> Dureena in Crusade a lot.
Nothing wrong per se with thieves or female thieves - see for instance
Lady Christina de Souza (Dr. Who). One that says "I'm a thief and a
damned good one" and leads on to the introduction of a thieves guild
should be shunned.
Thieves guilds don't work, it would be like nobility forming a trade
union. It only fits in Ankh-Morpork because its a parody, and Pratchett
makes little use of it - he knows it's a nonsense.
And the character Dureena smacks too much of Dungeons & Dragons. Carrie
Dobro is fine, though, and has previous with JMS in B5.
Alan Dicey
> Granted, these are all a matter of taste, but Star Trek does deserve
> the no. 1 spot since it has inspired so much of Sci-Fi today. In fact,
> it's become such a part of every day life that when you see other sci-
> fi shows that "borrow" trek language or concepts, it's not even out of
> the ordinary.
I'm sorry, you can't get away with that. You may be a fan of Star Trek,
but even The Original Series was not the paragon that its many
worshippers believe. ("Arena", anyone?)
Certainly TOS opened the the gates for better SF /on television/, but it
took a long time.
SF had been around in the pulps and on bookshelves for forty years
before Rodenberry came up with Wagon Train to the Stars. Trek is
derivative. TOS was about the only game in town at the time of first
broadcast (pace, Whovians, the Doctor is a horse of a different colour,
and The Prisoner is something else again). TOS also benefitted from
scripts by bona-fide SF authors, already successful in print (Bob Bloch,
Robert Silverberg, Ted Sturgeon, Norman Spinrad, Jerome Bixby, David
Gerrold and of course Harlan Ellison).
TNG had better actors but very uneven episode quality and still suffered
from too much use of the "plot reset" button. Some episodes are
literally made up of recycled footage ("Shades of Grey" for a start).
Recycling started with the second episode "The Naked Now", not a good sign.
Star Trek physics is entirely subordinate to the plot, to the point
where "Tetrion particles" and the particle-of-the-week tendency are a
laughing stock. (Tetrion is a brand of filler, and comes as a white
powder. Filler is called spackle in America, lord knows why)
DS9 lifted the superficial appearance of B5 but had no idea how to make
it work, and it fell apart badly. Avery Brooks was the best thing in it.
Voyager broke the whole Star Trek universe for me. They landed the
starship on a planet and took off again, for no good reason ("The
'37's", a poor episode overall as well). That was the point at which ST
lost me, and never got me back. From what I've heard (Borg Queens,
Seven of DD and emotional Vulcans) The rest of Voyager and the whole of
Enterprise just got worse.
B5 was a breath of fresh air, paid much better attention to technical
details, had engaging characters and repaid investment in the series
with a developing story. Started off slowly, with some uneven episodes,
but gathered speed well.
I would put Firefly in the No. 1 spot. Fourteen episodes, the worst of
which (Jaynestown? Heart of Gold?) is better than anything Star Trek
ever put out. The characters are interesting, engaging, clever, witty
and consistent. The technical aspects of space travel are done well (no
vhoosh-whee). The space-western feel fits in the frontier areas they
inhabit, and doesn't bother me at all - it is never played at the
expense of the SF element of the stories. Fox and Murdoch's News
Corporation enterprises will get no more of my money, if I can avoid it.
Cat deposited among pigeon flock. Cue ruffled feathers?
Giovanni Wassen
> But to say that Battlestar Galactica (reimagined new show) is bad is
> clearly telling me you haven't seen it. Even to a committed fan of
> Star Trek, Babylon 5, Twilight Zone and somewhat of a fan of Stargate,
> Battlestar is leaps and bounds superior in every single way. It is
> without doubt the best SciFi show ever produced.
It's all a matter of taste. I think the producers lost it at the end of the
run and the finale was just horrible. Beyond words horrible even.
--
Gio
http://www.watkijkikoptv.info
http://myanimelist.net/profile/extatix
http://watkijkikoptv.info/animeblog
Giovanni Wassen
> DS9 lifted the superficial appearance of B5 but had no idea how to
> make it work, and it fell apart badly. Avery Brooks was the best
> thing in it.
You mean that guy who pitched his voice almost always at the wrong time so
his big speeches sounded like they were made by a emotional drunk? Really,
he wasn't the best thing about DS9. I'd rather see the Grand Nagus getting
it on with Quark's mum.
Best thing about DS9 was Garak.
> I would put Firefly in the No. 1 spot. Fourteen episodes, the worst
> of which (Jaynestown? Heart of Gold?) is better than anything Star
> Trek ever put out. The characters are interesting, engaging, clever,
> witty and consistent. The technical aspects of space travel are done
> well (no vhoosh-whee).
Really? Full burn to get off a planet and having enough fuel to actually do
it? That really wasn't done well :)
Christophe Bachmann
> Star Trek physics is entirely subordinate to the plot, to the point
> where "Tetrion particles" and the particle-of-the-week tendency are a
> laughing stock. (Tetrion is a brand of filler, and comes as a white
> powder. Filler is called spackle in America, lord knows why)
>
However, when you don't know the brand (did it predate the Trek episode
?) a particle composed of four ions is a strange but semantically valid
concept. :-) and the tetryon would be a particle of the fourth order, so
valid technobabble...
However when you look at :
http://www.midwinter.com/~koreth/particles/
you have a point. However let's note that they lump in the particles a
whole slew of ores, mineral and organic chemical species etc.
> I would put Firefly in the No. 1 spot. Fourteen episodes, the worst of
> which (Jaynestown? Heart of Gold?) is better than anything Star Trek
> ever put out. The characters are interesting, engaging, clever, witty
> and consistent. The technical aspects of space travel are done well (no
> vhoosh-whee). The space-western feel fits in the frontier areas they
> inhabit, and doesn't bother me at all - it is never played at the
> expense of the SF element of the stories. Fox and Murdoch's News
> Corporation enterprises will get no more of my money, if I can avoid it.
I wouldn't put either Firefly or Crusade in the same league as
full-fledged series. None have given their full potential, and their
merits and flaws as they stand can't compare with those of long running
series.
--
Greetings, Salutations,
Guiraud Belissen, Château du Ciel, Drachenwald,
Chris CII, Rennes, France
Kathryn Huxtable
Well, as much as I enjoyed Crusade, and I did enjoy it, the cast is a
bit reminiscent of a D&D party. You've got your warrior (Gideon), your
mage (Galen), your thief (Dureena), your healer (Chambers), your psychic
(Mathiessen), and your smartass (Eilerson).
-K, waiting for the comments about "smartass". Come on, every gaming
group has at least one.
Kathryn Huxtable
> Alan Dicey a écrit :
>
>> [...] I would put Firefly in the No. 1 spot. Fourteen episodes, the
>> worst of which (Jaynestown? Heart of Gold?) is better than anything
>> Star Trek ever put out. The characters are interesting, engaging,
>> clever, witty and consistent. The technical aspects of space travel
>> are done well (no vhoosh-whee). The space-western feel fits in the
>> frontier areas they inhabit, and doesn't bother me at all - it is
>> never played at the expense of the SF element of the stories. [...]
>
> I wouldn't put either Firefly or Crusade in the same league as
> full-fledged series. None have given their full potential, and their
> merits and flaws as they stand can't compare with those of long
> running series.
I agree. B5 is my favorite show, and I was totally amazed by it. I had
completely given up on tv sf until friends convinced me I needed to see
it.
I have since lowered my standards and watched Stargate SG-1, Stargate
Atlantis, Firefly, the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica, and I sat
through the first episode of Stargate: Universe.
But generally, I prefer books. The problem with sf movies, IMHO, is that
in order to get funding and advertising they have to be action/adventure
shows, and that's not my favorite kind of sf. Compare/contrast Firefly
the series with Serenity the movie.
I really do understand what Roddenberry was trying to do with ST:TOS and
in general I think he succeeded. But that doesn't mean I enjoyed it or
watched it much.
-K, who really should go to bed sometime soon. Or take out her scope and
look at the Moon and see the crash. But that's not for another hour.
Josh Hill
<macthe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Bah! Dureena was a good character and well played by the actress, but
>not so much in "A Call to Arms" as in "Crusade." She was much better in
>"Crusade."
My problem with Dureena wasn't with the actress or even her character
so much as it was with the fact that she was one of those
stereotypical characters that only exists in sci fi. Like mutant child
ensigns.