Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Joss Whedon happy for "Veronica Mars," dreads "Firefly" questions
26 views
Skip to first unread message
David
Mar 15, 2013, 10:07:28 AM3/15/13
to
http://www.buzzfeed.com/adambvary/joss-whedon-on-kickstarter-and-firefly
Joss Whedon On Kickstarter And "Firefly": "It Doesn't Just Open The
Floodgates."
But Whedon does feel “unfettered joy” at the success of the Veronica
Mars Kickstarter campaign.
by Adam B. Vary
Practically from the first moment that Rob Thomas and Kristen Bell
announced their Kickstarter campaign for a Veronica Mars movie — and
certainly after the project amassed over $2.5 million in 24 hours —
people began wondering if the same could be done for another
gone-before-its-time TV series.
Joss Whedon was one of them.
"Yes, obviously, the next thing will be that we will try to Kickstart
a Dollhouse reunion," Whedon tells BuzzFeed.
He's joking, folks. Whedon — a professed Veronica Mars super-fan —
says he knew almost instantly that now that fan-based funding had been
proven viable at a feature film scale, the constant drumbeat of "when
will there be another Firefly movie?" would only be getting louder.
Whedon is something of a pioneer in the realm of reviving canceled
series into a feature film: Three years after Fox unceremoniously axed
Firefly in 2002, Whedon convinced Universal Pictures to bankroll a
feature film version that served as his feature directing debut. Alas,
Serenity grossed a meager $38.9 million worldwide, scuttling any
lasting hope that a major studio would step up to do it again. But if
Fox or Universal signed off on distributing a fan-funded Firefly
film...? Just the idea of it is enough to get Browncoats everywhere
itching at their wallets.
Initially, however, Whedon declined to talk about what the
implications of Veronica Mars' success would mean for Firefly. But
then, he says, "I realized if I don't, it's the only thing I'm ever
going to be asked ever by anyone."
So here's what he had to say:
Adam B. Vary: So what was your reaction when you heard this was
happening with Veronica Mars and it was so successful?
Joss Whedon: It was unfettered joy. A) I thought it was an awesome and
ballsy move. B) I love V. Mars and want more of it. And C) It feels
like a real game-changer. Like, not since Louis C.K. [selling his
comedy special directly online].
ABV: There has been some bellyaching about the idea of going to fans
to ask them to donate money to a project that they won't be true
investors in.
JW: Mmmhmm.
ABV: Any thoughts on that?
JW: You know, I get that. I understand that it feels not as pure, and
that the presence of a studio makes it disingenuous somehow. But
people clearly understood what was happening and just wanted to see
more of the thing they love. To give them that opportunity doesn't
feel wrong. If it was a truly wrong move, I don't think it would have
worked. I feel like people would have said, "Hey, that's not fair!
That doesn't count!" It costs a lot to see a movie anyway. And it's
usually not one you like. That kind of passion, I don't think it's
necessarily a bad thing. I might not be thinking it through. I'm not
exactly business Joe.
ABV: So, what does this mean for Firefly?
JW: That's what everybody wants to know about. Uh, yeah. My fourth
feeling when I read about [the Veronica Mars Kickstarter campaign] was
a kind of dread. Because I realized the only thing that would be on
everybody's mind right now. I've said repeatedly that I would love to
make another movie with these guys, and that remains the case. It also
remains the case that I'm booked up by Marvel for the next three
years, and that I haven't even been able to get Dr. Horrible 2 off the
ground because of that. So I don't even entertain the notion of
entertaining the notion of doing this, and won't. Couple years from
now, when Nathan [Fillion]'s no longer [on] Castle and I'm no longer
the Tom Hagen of the Marvel Universe and making a giant movie, we
might look and see where the market is then. But right now, it's a
complete non-Kickstarter for me.
ABV: I think you would need at least 10 times the budget of what the
Veronica Mars folks are asking for for their movie to make a Firefly
movie make sense.
JW: Yes. We come to Veronica Mars to hear her talk and hear her father
talk. But Firefly/Serenity, it's kind of a different animal — and then
there's also the question of what kind of animal it is. Because some
people are talking about Firefly episodes. Some people are talking
about [a new] Serenity. I think anything we could get off the ground
would be appreciated by the fans. But what form it would take is I
think under some debate.
For me, [Kickstarter] doesn't just open the floodgates. God knows,
things are cheaper now than when we made even Serenity. Good effects
can be done in a different manner. Nor is that universe all about
spectacle either. But it is a tad more expensive — and a little
all-consuming! And of course, there's the other fear: What if it's not
that good? I can do something that's not that good — that's fine. But
if I do that and it's not that good, I'm going to feel really stupid.
Because I'm too busy to deal with it, I did have a moment of just, "Oh
my god! I'm in trouble now." I've always said, "Yes, I'd love to do
another one," and it's still true. But I sort of got slapped in the
face with it. Or probably will.
ABV: Well at least you have a good excuse to kick the can down the
road a bit, since you're, how did you put it, the Tom Hagen of Marvel
Universe? That's a great metaphor.
JW: (Laughs) That's how I see it. At some point, [Marvel Studios
chief] Kevin Feige is going to turn to me and say, "You're out, Joss."
Joss Whedon On Kickstarter And "Firefly": "It Doesn't Just Open The
Floodgates."
But Whedon does feel “unfettered joy” at the success of the Veronica
Mars Kickstarter campaign.
by Adam B. Vary
Practically from the first moment that Rob Thomas and Kristen Bell
announced their Kickstarter campaign for a Veronica Mars movie — and
certainly after the project amassed over $2.5 million in 24 hours —
people began wondering if the same could be done for another
gone-before-its-time TV series.
Joss Whedon was one of them.
"Yes, obviously, the next thing will be that we will try to Kickstart
a Dollhouse reunion," Whedon tells BuzzFeed.
He's joking, folks. Whedon — a professed Veronica Mars super-fan —
says he knew almost instantly that now that fan-based funding had been
proven viable at a feature film scale, the constant drumbeat of "when
will there be another Firefly movie?" would only be getting louder.
Whedon is something of a pioneer in the realm of reviving canceled
series into a feature film: Three years after Fox unceremoniously axed
Firefly in 2002, Whedon convinced Universal Pictures to bankroll a
feature film version that served as his feature directing debut. Alas,
Serenity grossed a meager $38.9 million worldwide, scuttling any
lasting hope that a major studio would step up to do it again. But if
Fox or Universal signed off on distributing a fan-funded Firefly
film...? Just the idea of it is enough to get Browncoats everywhere
itching at their wallets.
Initially, however, Whedon declined to talk about what the
implications of Veronica Mars' success would mean for Firefly. But
then, he says, "I realized if I don't, it's the only thing I'm ever
going to be asked ever by anyone."
So here's what he had to say:
Adam B. Vary: So what was your reaction when you heard this was
happening with Veronica Mars and it was so successful?
Joss Whedon: It was unfettered joy. A) I thought it was an awesome and
ballsy move. B) I love V. Mars and want more of it. And C) It feels
like a real game-changer. Like, not since Louis C.K. [selling his
comedy special directly online].
ABV: There has been some bellyaching about the idea of going to fans
to ask them to donate money to a project that they won't be true
investors in.
JW: Mmmhmm.
ABV: Any thoughts on that?
JW: You know, I get that. I understand that it feels not as pure, and
that the presence of a studio makes it disingenuous somehow. But
people clearly understood what was happening and just wanted to see
more of the thing they love. To give them that opportunity doesn't
feel wrong. If it was a truly wrong move, I don't think it would have
worked. I feel like people would have said, "Hey, that's not fair!
That doesn't count!" It costs a lot to see a movie anyway. And it's
usually not one you like. That kind of passion, I don't think it's
necessarily a bad thing. I might not be thinking it through. I'm not
exactly business Joe.
ABV: So, what does this mean for Firefly?
JW: That's what everybody wants to know about. Uh, yeah. My fourth
feeling when I read about [the Veronica Mars Kickstarter campaign] was
a kind of dread. Because I realized the only thing that would be on
everybody's mind right now. I've said repeatedly that I would love to
make another movie with these guys, and that remains the case. It also
remains the case that I'm booked up by Marvel for the next three
years, and that I haven't even been able to get Dr. Horrible 2 off the
ground because of that. So I don't even entertain the notion of
entertaining the notion of doing this, and won't. Couple years from
now, when Nathan [Fillion]'s no longer [on] Castle and I'm no longer
the Tom Hagen of the Marvel Universe and making a giant movie, we
might look and see where the market is then. But right now, it's a
complete non-Kickstarter for me.
ABV: I think you would need at least 10 times the budget of what the
Veronica Mars folks are asking for for their movie to make a Firefly
movie make sense.
JW: Yes. We come to Veronica Mars to hear her talk and hear her father
talk. But Firefly/Serenity, it's kind of a different animal — and then
there's also the question of what kind of animal it is. Because some
people are talking about Firefly episodes. Some people are talking
about [a new] Serenity. I think anything we could get off the ground
would be appreciated by the fans. But what form it would take is I
think under some debate.
For me, [Kickstarter] doesn't just open the floodgates. God knows,
things are cheaper now than when we made even Serenity. Good effects
can be done in a different manner. Nor is that universe all about
spectacle either. But it is a tad more expensive — and a little
all-consuming! And of course, there's the other fear: What if it's not
that good? I can do something that's not that good — that's fine. But
if I do that and it's not that good, I'm going to feel really stupid.
Because I'm too busy to deal with it, I did have a moment of just, "Oh
my god! I'm in trouble now." I've always said, "Yes, I'd love to do
another one," and it's still true. But I sort of got slapped in the
face with it. Or probably will.
ABV: Well at least you have a good excuse to kick the can down the
road a bit, since you're, how did you put it, the Tom Hagen of Marvel
Universe? That's a great metaphor.
JW: (Laughs) That's how I see it. At some point, [Marvel Studios
chief] Kevin Feige is going to turn to me and say, "You're out, Joss."
EGK
Mar 15, 2013, 10:53:30 AM3/15/13
to
Do people really care what Whedon thinks about this? He should be so rich
now from The Avengers he could finance anything he wanted now.
He already got his Firefly movie and Serentity was a box office failure.
Plus it wasn't nearly as charming as the TV series anyway.
now from The Avengers he could finance anything he wanted now.
He already got his Firefly movie and Serentity was a box office failure.
Plus it wasn't nearly as charming as the TV series anyway.
Dano
Mar 15, 2013, 11:01:08 AM3/15/13
to
"EGK" wrote in message news:kbd6k8pbu015rbrlc...@4ax.com...
Do people really care what Whedon thinks about this? He should be so rich
now from The Avengers he could finance anything he wanted now.
He already got his Firefly movie and Serentity was a box office failure.
Plus it wasn't nearly as charming as the TV series anyway.
=============================================
And he killed off Wash. Never going back. Would not be the same. Time to
move on. Other tales to tell.
Do people really care what Whedon thinks about this? He should be so rich
now from The Avengers he could finance anything he wanted now.
He already got his Firefly movie and Serentity was a box office failure.
Plus it wasn't nearly as charming as the TV series anyway.
And he killed off Wash. Never going back. Would not be the same. Time to
move on. Other tales to tell.
David
Mar 15, 2013, 11:03:32 AM3/15/13
to
On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 10:53:30 -0400, EGK <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>Do people really care what Whedon thinks about this? He should be so rich
>now from The Avengers he could finance anything he wanted now.
Marvel only pays Robert Downey Jr. that much.
>Do people really care what Whedon thinks about this? He should be so rich
>now from The Avengers he could finance anything he wanted now.
Invid Fan
Mar 15, 2013, 11:04:37 AM3/15/13
to
In article <kbd6k8pbu015rbrlc...@4ax.com>, EGK
time.
--
Chris Mack "If we show any weakness, the monsters will get cocky!"
'Invid Fan' - 'Yokai Monsters Along With Ghosts'
<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> Do people really care what Whedon thinks about this? He should be so rich
> now from The Avengers he could finance anything he wanted now.
Really? By that reasoning actors should be funding new movies all the
> Do people really care what Whedon thinks about this? He should be so rich
> now from The Avengers he could finance anything he wanted now.
time.
--
Chris Mack "If we show any weakness, the monsters will get cocky!"
'Invid Fan' - 'Yokai Monsters Along With Ghosts'
EGK
Mar 15, 2013, 11:44:16 AM3/15/13
to
On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 11:04:37 -0400, Invid Fan <in...@loclanet.com> wrote:
>In article <kbd6k8pbu015rbrlc...@4ax.com>, EGK
><m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> Do people really care what Whedon thinks about this? He should be so rich
>> now from The Avengers he could finance anything he wanted now.
>
>Really? By that reasoning actors should be funding new movies all the
>time.
Many do but usually only if they think there is profit in it.
>In article <kbd6k8pbu015rbrlc...@4ax.com>, EGK
><m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> Do people really care what Whedon thinks about this? He should be so rich
>> now from The Avengers he could finance anything he wanted now.
>
>Really? By that reasoning actors should be funding new movies all the
>time.
Obveeus
Mar 15, 2013, 11:55:59 AM3/15/13
to
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.buzzfeed.com/adambvary/joss-whedon-on-kickstarter-and-firefly
>
> Joss Whedon On Kickstarter And "Firefly": "It Doesn't Just Open The
> Floodgates."
> But Whedon does feel "unfettered joy" at the success of the Veronica
> Mars Kickstarter campaign.
> by Adam B. Vary
>
> Practically from the first moment that Rob Thomas and Kristen Bell
> certainly after the project amassed over $2.5 million in 24 hours -
> people began wondering if the same could be done for another
> gone-before-its-time TV series.
SERENITY cost about $40million to make. I don't see that happening on a fan
> gone-before-its-time TV series.
funded whim even if all the participants were willing to return. As for the
VERONICA MARS thing...$2.5million is less than 1 hours worth of TV footage,
so they better raise more if they expect to make a feature film and have it
look like anything other than a direct to DVD effort.
David
Mar 15, 2013, 12:17:31 PM3/15/13
to
On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 11:55:59 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>SERENITY cost about $40million to make. I don't see that happening on a fan
>funded whim even if all the participants were willing to return. As for the
>VERONICA MARS thing...$2.5million is less than 1 hours worth of TV footage,
>so they better raise more if they expect to make a feature film and have it
>look like anything other than a direct to DVD effort.
Most direct to DVD efforts are done by people who don't know what
>SERENITY cost about $40million to make. I don't see that happening on a fan
>funded whim even if all the participants were willing to return. As for the
>VERONICA MARS thing...$2.5million is less than 1 hours worth of TV footage,
>so they better raise more if they expect to make a feature film and have it
>look like anything other than a direct to DVD effort.
they're doing or don't care. VM already has a script they like,
experience doing a low-budget show, and it's a labor of love for them.
It'll be fine.
EGK
Mar 15, 2013, 12:19:01 PM3/15/13
to
main cast members in order to get them cheap. No one has gone on to be a
star in anything else anyway. Even Bell.
David
Mar 15, 2013, 12:29:10 PM3/15/13
to
low-budget movies, many of them by choice. There seems to be enough
money in it to live comfortably.
EGK
Mar 15, 2013, 12:42:23 PM3/15/13
to
nothing since the show ended anyway. I'm sure they work fairly cheap.
Bell, Calantoni and maybe Dohring are the only ones in much demand. They
might get a share of profits in lieu of a high salary.
I can't imagine anyone associated wants to make a movie they know would be a
financial disaster.
David
Mar 15, 2013, 12:58:57 PM3/15/13
to
On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 12:42:23 -0400, EGK <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>LIke I just said in the other thread, most of that cast has done next to
>nothing since the show ended anyway. I'm sure they work fairly cheap.
>Bell, Calantoni and maybe Dohring are the only ones in much demand. They
>might get a share of profits in lieu of a high salary.
>
>I can't imagine anyone associated wants to make a movie they know would be a
>financial disaster.
I don't think they're doing it out of the goodness of their hearts,
>LIke I just said in the other thread, most of that cast has done next to
>nothing since the show ended anyway. I'm sure they work fairly cheap.
>Bell, Calantoni and maybe Dohring are the only ones in much demand. They
>might get a share of profits in lieu of a high salary.
>
>I can't imagine anyone associated wants to make a movie they know would be a
>financial disaster.
but I think they do want to be a part of the project and would take
reasonably small compensation. It's something that happens frequently.
You also see lots of actors pop up all over the place seemingly as a
favor for friends. Joss Whedon, Judd Apatow, Adult Swim and Comedy
Central shows engender that, and probably Rob Thomas since his
no-budget "Party Down" featured a lot of actors from "Mars" and other
name actors.
Remysun
Mar 15, 2013, 2:36:16 PM3/15/13
to
On Mar 15, 12:17 pm, David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Most direct to DVD efforts are done by people who don't know what
> they're doing or don't care. VM already has a script they like,
> experience doing a low-budget show, and it's a labor of love for them.
> It'll be fine.
You're killing me on the labor of love stuff. Kristen knows she's
> Most direct to DVD efforts are done by people who don't know what
> they're doing or don't care. VM already has a script they like,
> experience doing a low-budget show, and it's a labor of love for them.
> It'll be fine.
gonna play out from popping a kid, even if just from leaving Katherine
Heigl the rom coms all to herself. This kickstarter stuff is just a
way to gauge the ROI.
anim8rFSK
Mar 15, 2013, 2:45:39 PM3/15/13
to
> Do people really care what Whedon thinks about this? He should be so rich
> now from The Avengers he could finance anything he wanted now.
Yeah, that was my reaction. Whedon should be able to launch a new
> now from The Avengers he could finance anything he wanted now.
Firefly any time he wants.
--
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."
David
Mar 15, 2013, 2:51:46 PM3/15/13
to
into an untouchable. And while they certainly want "Veronica Mars" to
make them money, there were better uses of their time now and over the
years than to keep trying to revive it so they are doing it in large
part out of passion for the project.
Obveeus
Mar 15, 2013, 3:52:42 PM3/15/13
to
"anim8rFSK" <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> EGK <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> Do people really care what Whedon thinks about this? He should be so
>> rich
>> now from The Avengers he could finance anything he wanted now.
>
> Yeah, that was my reaction. Whedon should be able to launch a new
> Firefly any time he wants.
why would anyone expect him to fund the project?
Mason Barge
Mar 15, 2013, 5:32:08 PM3/15/13
to
On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 11:45:39 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
wrote:
>In article <kbd6k8pbu015rbrlc...@4ax.com>,
> EGK <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> Do people really care what Whedon thinks about this? He should be so rich
>> now from The Avengers he could finance anything he wanted now.
>
>Yeah, that was my reaction. Whedon should be able to launch a new
>Firefly any time he wants.
Are there very many producer-financed movies? My impression is that
this is assiduously avoided. The big exception being Mel Gibson who
made like a gazillion $$ because nobody would distribute his Christ
movie.
But I really don't see Whedon as being all that rich, number one, or
b) all that willing to put up a huge chunk of his own money for a
movie,
wrote:
>In article <kbd6k8pbu015rbrlc...@4ax.com>,
> EGK <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> Do people really care what Whedon thinks about this? He should be so rich
>> now from The Avengers he could finance anything he wanted now.
>
>Yeah, that was my reaction. Whedon should be able to launch a new
>Firefly any time he wants.
this is assiduously avoided. The big exception being Mel Gibson who
made like a gazillion $$ because nobody would distribute his Christ
movie.
But I really don't see Whedon as being all that rich, number one, or
b) all that willing to put up a huge chunk of his own money for a
movie,
Jim G.
Mar 15, 2013, 6:07:09 PM3/15/13
to
Obveeus sent the following on Fri, 15 Mar 2013 15:52:42 -0400:
Didn't J.J. Abrams recently spend a lot of time saying that he wouldn't
be directing any STAR WARS films?
--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"Good evening. I'm a lizard woman from the dawn of time, and this is my wife." -- Madame Vastra, DOCTOR WHO
be directing any STAR WARS films?
--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"Good evening. I'm a lizard woman from the dawn of time, and this is my wife." -- Madame Vastra, DOCTOR WHO
anim8rFSK
Mar 15, 2013, 7:11:44 PM3/15/13
to
In article <u6r6k8t7eup3lfo63...@4ax.com>,
David <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 11:36:16 -0700 (PDT), Remysun
> <remys...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Mar 15, 12:17 pm, David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Most direct to DVD efforts are done by people who don't know what
> >> they're doing or don't care. VM already has a script they like,
> >> experience doing a low-budget show, and it's a labor of love for them.
> >> It'll be fine.
> >
> >You're killing me on the labor of love stuff. Kristen knows she's
> >gonna play out from popping a kid, even if just from leaving Katherine
> >Heigl the rom coms all to herself. This kickstarter stuff is just a
> >way to gauge the ROI.
>
> Holy crap, the cynics here... Having a baby isn't going to turn her
> into an untouchable.
Having Dax Shepard's baby just might.
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 11:36:16 -0700 (PDT), Remysun
> <remys...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Mar 15, 12:17 pm, David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Most direct to DVD efforts are done by people who don't know what
> >> they're doing or don't care. VM already has a script they like,
> >> experience doing a low-budget show, and it's a labor of love for them.
> >> It'll be fine.
> >
> >You're killing me on the labor of love stuff. Kristen knows she's
> >gonna play out from popping a kid, even if just from leaving Katherine
> >Heigl the rom coms all to herself. This kickstarter stuff is just a
> >way to gauge the ROI.
>
> Holy crap, the cynics here... Having a baby isn't going to turn her
> into an untouchable.
Stan Brown
Mar 15, 2013, 7:16:21 PM3/15/13
to
On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 10:07:28 -0400, David wrote:
> Alas,
> Serenity grossed a meager $38.9 million worldwide,
Because it wasn't very good. I loved /Firefly/, but both I and the
> Alas,
> Serenity grossed a meager $38.9 million worldwide,
two friends with whom I left /Serenity/ left it feeling really
disappointed.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Shikata ga nai...
Your Name
Mar 15, 2013, 7:19:40 PM3/15/13
to
In article <sn67k8drrusm3dceq...@4ax.com>, Jim G.
now being in charge, and Disney cancelling almost everything, the Star
Wars looks like another franchise being flushed down the toilet. :-(
<jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> Obveeus sent the following on Fri, 15 Mar 2013 15:52:42 -0400:
> > "anim8rFSK" <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > EGK <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Do people really care what Whedon thinks about this? He should be so
> > >> rich
> > >> now from The Avengers he could finance anything he wanted now.
> > >
> > > Yeah, that was my reaction. Whedon should be able to launch a new
> > > Firefly any time he wants.
> >
> > Since he has specifically stated that more FIREFLY is not going to happen,
> > why would anyone expect him to fund the project?
>
> Didn't J.J. Abrams recently spend a lot of time saying that he wouldn't
> be directing any STAR WARS films?
Yep. He's a liar as well as lazy and talentless. With Abrams and Disney
> Obveeus sent the following on Fri, 15 Mar 2013 15:52:42 -0400:
> > "anim8rFSK" <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > EGK <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Do people really care what Whedon thinks about this? He should be so
> > >> rich
> > >> now from The Avengers he could finance anything he wanted now.
> > >
> > > Yeah, that was my reaction. Whedon should be able to launch a new
> > > Firefly any time he wants.
> >
> > Since he has specifically stated that more FIREFLY is not going to happen,
> > why would anyone expect him to fund the project?
>
> Didn't J.J. Abrams recently spend a lot of time saying that he wouldn't
> be directing any STAR WARS films?
now being in charge, and Disney cancelling almost everything, the Star
Wars looks like another franchise being flushed down the toilet. :-(
Your Name
Mar 15, 2013, 7:24:58 PM3/15/13
to
In article <ul47k8hpu2hbplufr...@4ax.com>, Mason Barge
George Lucas finanaced all of the Star Wars franchise movies and TV shows
himself, with the exception of the very first one (later renamed "Episode
IV"). He also financed other LucasFilm movies himself.
Twentieth Century Fox were simply distributors and had absolutely no say
in what he could or couldn't do in the movies. In fact the Prequel Trilogy
very nearly went to a different movie distributor.
<mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 11:45:39 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
> wrote:
> >In article <kbd6k8pbu015rbrlc...@4ax.com>,
> > EGK <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Do people really care what Whedon thinks about this? He should be so
> >> rich now from The Avengers he could finance anything he wanted now.
> >
> >Yeah, that was my reaction. Whedon should be able to launch a new
> >Firefly any time he wants.
>
> Are there very many producer-financed movies? My impression is that
> this is assiduously avoided. The big exception being Mel Gibson who
> made like a gazillion $$ because nobody would distribute his Christ
> movie.
<snip>
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 11:45:39 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
> wrote:
> >In article <kbd6k8pbu015rbrlc...@4ax.com>,
> > EGK <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Do people really care what Whedon thinks about this? He should be so
> >> rich now from The Avengers he could finance anything he wanted now.
> >
> >Yeah, that was my reaction. Whedon should be able to launch a new
> >Firefly any time he wants.
>
> Are there very many producer-financed movies? My impression is that
> this is assiduously avoided. The big exception being Mel Gibson who
> made like a gazillion $$ because nobody would distribute his Christ
> movie.
George Lucas finanaced all of the Star Wars franchise movies and TV shows
himself, with the exception of the very first one (later renamed "Episode
IV"). He also financed other LucasFilm movies himself.
Twentieth Century Fox were simply distributors and had absolutely no say
in what he could or couldn't do in the movies. In fact the Prequel Trilogy
very nearly went to a different movie distributor.
Obveeus
Mar 16, 2013, 8:42:27 AM3/16/13
to
"Stan Brown" <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 10:07:28 -0400, David wrote:
>> Alas,
>> Serenity grossed a meager $38.9 million worldwide,
>
> Because it wasn't very good. I loved /Firefly/, but both I and the
> two friends with whom I left /Serenity/ left it feeling really
> disappointed.
series, not simply another chapter.
Merrick Baldelli
Mar 16, 2013, 12:42:07 PM3/16/13
to
you see it. Or are you being rhetorical here?
--
-=-=-/ )=*=-='=-.-'-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
_( (_ , '_ * . Merrick Baldelli
(((\ \> /_1 `
(\\\\ \_/ /
-=-\ /-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
\ _/ You can't spell 'disgust' without
/ / 'SGU' - Anim8rFSK
Merrick Baldelli
Mar 16, 2013, 12:42:07 PM3/16/13
to
On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:07:09 -0500, Jim G.
<jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>Didn't J.J. Abrams recently spend a lot of time saying that he wouldn't
>be directing any STAR WARS films?
The man has as much memory and an attention span equivalent to
<jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>Didn't J.J. Abrams recently spend a lot of time saying that he wouldn't
>be directing any STAR WARS films?
a kid with ADHD eating candy. I've come to learn to trust NOTHING
that comes out of his mouth.
Mason Barge
Mar 16, 2013, 1:28:10 PM3/16/13
to
On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 19:16:21 -0400, Stan Brown
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 10:07:28 -0400, David wrote:
>> Alas,
>> Serenity grossed a meager $38.9 million worldwide,
>
>Because it wasn't very good. I loved /Firefly/, but both I and the
>two friends with whom I left /Serenity/ left it feeling really
>disappointed.
I thought it was really good. Tastes do differ!
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 10:07:28 -0400, David wrote:
>> Alas,
>> Serenity grossed a meager $38.9 million worldwide,
>
>Because it wasn't very good. I loved /Firefly/, but both I and the
>two friends with whom I left /Serenity/ left it feeling really
>disappointed.
erilar
Mar 16, 2013, 2:20:49 PM3/16/13
to
In article <MPG.2bad75d35...@news.individual.net>,
really spoiled the humor/action tension Firefly was so good at.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 10:07:28 -0400, David wrote:
> > Alas,
> > Serenity grossed a meager $38.9 million worldwide,
>
> Because it wasn't very good. I loved /Firefly/, but both I and the
> two friends with whom I left /Serenity/ left it feeling really
> disappointed.
I think it was trying to tell too many stories at once. Killing Wash
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 10:07:28 -0400, David wrote:
> > Alas,
> > Serenity grossed a meager $38.9 million worldwide,
>
> Because it wasn't very good. I loved /Firefly/, but both I and the
> two friends with whom I left /Serenity/ left it feeling really
> disappointed.
really spoiled the humor/action tension Firefly was so good at.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
AC
Mar 16, 2013, 2:21:48 PM3/16/13
to
Stan Brown wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 10:07:28 -0400, David wrote:
>> Alas,
>> Serenity grossed a meager $38.9 million worldwide,
>
> Because it wasn't very good. I loved /Firefly/, but both I and the
> two friends with whom I left /Serenity/ left it feeling really
> disappointed.
>
>
>
I thought Serenity took the show up a level. It was a brilliant movie,
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 10:07:28 -0400, David wrote:
>> Alas,
>> Serenity grossed a meager $38.9 million worldwide,
>
> Because it wasn't very good. I loved /Firefly/, but both I and the
> two friends with whom I left /Serenity/ left it feeling really
> disappointed.
>
>
>
even in its own right. I know quite a few people who saw the movie
first, then bought the box set for the "back story".
As for the subject of more? No. Its done, and as complete as it can be.
More would ruin the whole.
--
AC
erilar
Mar 16, 2013, 2:22:14 PM3/16/13
to
In article <ki1p8c$1q7$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:
It suffered from that: too much packed into normal movie length. That
said, naturally I loved it, too. To this day the only fiction DVDs I
own are Firefly and Serenity.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
wrote:
said, naturally I loved it, too. To this day the only fiction DVDs I
own are Firefly and Serenity.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
Steve Bartman
Mar 16, 2013, 2:31:43 PM3/16/13
to
On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 13:28:10 -0400, Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com>
Why can't they do a new series in the Firefly universe? It's already
built. Few outside the fan base would recall the original. It's
waiting to be "Star Trek", but over half of it can be made on Western
back-lots, cheap.
Steve
wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 19:16:21 -0400, Stan Brown
><the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 10:07:28 -0400, David wrote:
>>> Alas,
>>> Serenity grossed a meager $38.9 million worldwide,
>>
>>Because it wasn't very good. I loved /Firefly/, but both I and the
>>two friends with whom I left /Serenity/ left it feeling really
>>disappointed.
>
>I thought it was really good. Tastes do differ!
Me too.
>On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 19:16:21 -0400, Stan Brown
><the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 10:07:28 -0400, David wrote:
>>> Alas,
>>> Serenity grossed a meager $38.9 million worldwide,
>>
>>Because it wasn't very good. I loved /Firefly/, but both I and the
>>two friends with whom I left /Serenity/ left it feeling really
>>disappointed.
>
>I thought it was really good. Tastes do differ!
Why can't they do a new series in the Firefly universe? It's already
built. Few outside the fan base would recall the original. It's
waiting to be "Star Trek", but over half of it can be made on Western
back-lots, cheap.
Steve
EGK
Mar 16, 2013, 2:47:56 PM3/16/13
to
On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 13:20:49 -0500, erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid>
wrote:
I agree. The movie got bogged down trying to do too much and I felt took
itself too seriously. I didn't think it had nearly the charm as the series
but charm is something the series built up over time.
wrote:
itself too seriously. I didn't think it had nearly the charm as the series
but charm is something the series built up over time.
Stan Brown
Mar 16, 2013, 3:41:33 PM3/16/13
to
On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 13:31:43 -0500, Steve Bartman wrote:
> Why can't they do a new series in the Firefly universe? It's already
> built.
>
Does the spaceship set still exist? I would have thought it had been
> Why can't they do a new series in the Firefly universe? It's already
> built.
>
dismantled by now.
I'd love to see another series. The original seems to have been a
labor of love of which they're still very fond, so I'll bet most of
the actors would make themselves available.
Stan Brown
Mar 16, 2013, 3:43:04 PM3/16/13
to
but if it did then I think it should be a sequel to the series and
basically just ignore all the events of the movie.
Jerry Brown
Mar 16, 2013, 3:57:19 PM3/16/13
to
On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 13:20:49 -0500, erilar
course of Firefly: "If you take advantage of this woman, you will go
to a special Hell reserved for child molestors and people who talk at
the theatre". And we never got his complete backstory either (was he a
reformed operative?).
--
Jerry Brown
A cat may look at a king
(but probably won't bother)
Your Name
Mar 16, 2013, 5:09:48 PM3/16/13
to
In article <jt79k85kn3vkk25g2...@4ax.com>, Merrick Baldelli
things at once, all of what he's involved with is like the brown stuff
that comes out the other end of that kid ... another bad sign for the Star
Wars franchise. :-(
<mbal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:07:09 -0500, Jim G.
> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Didn't J.J. Abrams recently spend a lot of time saying that he wouldn't
> >be directing any STAR WARS films?
>
> The man has as much memory and an attention span equivalent to
> a kid with ADHD eating candy. I've come to learn to trust NOTHING
> that comes out of his mouth.
And because he's rushing around supposedly doing 95 million different
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:07:09 -0500, Jim G.
> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Didn't J.J. Abrams recently spend a lot of time saying that he wouldn't
> >be directing any STAR WARS films?
>
> The man has as much memory and an attention span equivalent to
> a kid with ADHD eating candy. I've come to learn to trust NOTHING
> that comes out of his mouth.
things at once, all of what he's involved with is like the brown stuff
that comes out the other end of that kid ... another bad sign for the Star
Wars franchise. :-(
erilar
Mar 16, 2013, 5:21:14 PM3/16/13
to
In article <0ie9k8tebnh26ev1h...@4ax.com>,
Brilliant idea! They might still be able to get a couple of the
original characters as old-timers, maybe just off and on?
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
original characters as old-timers, maybe just off and on?
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
Steve Bartman
Mar 16, 2013, 5:41:07 PM3/16/13
to
The smuggling over-story made it possible for them to move around
every week, so something similar would be great. Maybe Mal's son 25
years after the original? With another civil war brewing? Something.
Doesn't have to be the same sets or actors. TNG wasn't Kirk and Spock,
but it was still Star Trek. And better in many ways.
I wanted to know a lot more about the evil central government, the
history of the cultures' blending together, etc.
Steve
Geoff Warren
Mar 16, 2013, 6:02:40 PM3/16/13
to
Jerry Brown <je...@jwbrown.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
news:5fj9k8tcjava9rm29...@jwbrown.co.uk:
> Same goes for Shepherd Book, who had some great moments over the
> course of Firefly: "If you take advantage of this woman, you will go
> to a special Hell reserved for child molestors and people who talk at
> the theatre". And we never got his complete backstory either (was he a
> reformed operative?).
We got his backstory. Seems reasonably complete. Look for the graphic
novel "Serenity: The Shepherd's Tale".
news:5fj9k8tcjava9rm29...@jwbrown.co.uk:
> Same goes for Shepherd Book, who had some great moments over the
> course of Firefly: "If you take advantage of this woman, you will go
> to a special Hell reserved for child molestors and people who talk at
> the theatre". And we never got his complete backstory either (was he a
> reformed operative?).
novel "Serenity: The Shepherd's Tale".
Jerry Brown
Mar 16, 2013, 6:45:47 PM3/16/13
to
Merrick Baldelli
Mar 17, 2013, 7:04:18 AM3/17/13
to
On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 09:09:48 +1200, Your...@YourISP.com (Your Name)
wrote:
>And because he's rushing around supposedly doing 95 million different
>things at once, all of what he's involved with is like the brown stuff
>that comes out the other end of that kid ... another bad sign for the Star
>Wars franchise. :-(
I seriously think he also needs to get rid of the two clowns
he keeps around for licking his ass after a particularly gruesome case
of explosive diarrhea: Orci and Kurtzman. They don't help matters at
ALL.
wrote:
>And because he's rushing around supposedly doing 95 million different
>things at once, all of what he's involved with is like the brown stuff
>that comes out the other end of that kid ... another bad sign for the Star
>Wars franchise. :-(
he keeps around for licking his ass after a particularly gruesome case
of explosive diarrhea: Orci and Kurtzman. They don't help matters at
ALL.
anim8rFSK
Mar 17, 2013, 8:51:32 AM3/17/13
to
In article <7e8bk8dnao246d2nq...@4ax.com>,
Merrick Baldelli <mbal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 09:09:48 +1200, Your...@YourISP.com (Your Name)
> wrote:
>
> >And because he's rushing around supposedly doing 95 million different
> >things at once, all of what he's involved with is like the brown stuff
> >that comes out the other end of that kid ... another bad sign for the Star
> >Wars franchise. :-(
>
> I seriously think he also needs to get rid of the two clowns
> he keeps around for licking his ass after a particularly gruesome case
> of explosive diarrhea: Orci and Kurtzman. They don't help matters at
> ALL.
No, Orci is the real enemy.
> On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 09:09:48 +1200, Your...@YourISP.com (Your Name)
> wrote:
>
> >And because he's rushing around supposedly doing 95 million different
> >things at once, all of what he's involved with is like the brown stuff
> >that comes out the other end of that kid ... another bad sign for the Star
> >Wars franchise. :-(
>
> I seriously think he also needs to get rid of the two clowns
> he keeps around for licking his ass after a particularly gruesome case
> of explosive diarrhea: Orci and Kurtzman. They don't help matters at
> ALL.
Adam H. Kerman
Mar 17, 2013, 1:10:43 PM3/17/13
to
anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>Merrick Baldelli <mbal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 09:09:48 +1200, Your...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
>>>And because he's rushing around supposedly doing 95 million different
>>>things at once, all of what he's involved with is like the brown stuff
>>>that comes out the other end of that kid ... another bad sign for the Star
>>>Wars franchise. :-(
>>I seriously think he also needs to get rid of the two clowns
>>he keeps around for licking his ass after a particularly gruesome case
>>of explosive diarrhea: Orci and Kurtzman. They don't help matters at
>>ALL.
>No, Orci is the real enemy.
Every time you say that, I think Stargate: SGU.
>Merrick Baldelli <mbal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 09:09:48 +1200, Your...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
>>>And because he's rushing around supposedly doing 95 million different
>>>things at once, all of what he's involved with is like the brown stuff
>>>that comes out the other end of that kid ... another bad sign for the Star
>>>Wars franchise. :-(
>>I seriously think he also needs to get rid of the two clowns
>>he keeps around for licking his ass after a particularly gruesome case
>>of explosive diarrhea: Orci and Kurtzman. They don't help matters at
>>ALL.
>No, Orci is the real enemy.
Adam H. Kerman
Mar 17, 2013, 1:41:54 PM3/17/13
to
Remysun <remys...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Mar 15, 12:17 pm, David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Most direct to DVD efforts are done by people who don't know what
>>they're doing or don't care. VM already has a script they like,
>>experience doing a low-budget show, and it's a labor of love for them.
>>It'll be fine.
>You're killing me on the labor of love stuff. Kristen knows she's
>gonna play out from popping a kid, even if just from leaving Katherine
>Heigl the rom coms all to herself. This kickstarter stuff is just a
>way to gauge the ROI.
The only one that was slightly clever was Forgetting Sarah Marshall, but others
>On Mar 15, 12:17 pm, David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Most direct to DVD efforts are done by people who don't know what
>>they're doing or don't care. VM already has a script they like,
>>experience doing a low-budget show, and it's a labor of love for them.
>>It'll be fine.
>You're killing me on the labor of love stuff. Kristen knows she's
>gonna play out from popping a kid, even if just from leaving Katherine
>Heigl the rom coms all to herself. This kickstarter stuff is just a
>way to gauge the ROI.
who have seen that have said it's less awful than other bad romcoms. I was
tempted to see it because she was in it and because it had the cleverest
marketing campaign I'd seen in some time, but I resisted.
Adam H. Kerman
Mar 17, 2013, 1:44:34 PM3/17/13
to
Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 10:07:28 -0400, David wrote:
>>Alas, Serenity grossed a meager $38.9 million worldwide,
>Because it wasn't very good. I loved /Firefly/, but both I and the
>two friends with whom I left /Serenity/ left it feeling really
>disappointed.
I liked it a lot, and I really liked the Revers origin story. But yeah,
>On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 10:07:28 -0400, David wrote:
>>Alas, Serenity grossed a meager $38.9 million worldwide,
>Because it wasn't very good. I loved /Firefly/, but both I and the
>two friends with whom I left /Serenity/ left it feeling really
>disappointed.
it was more horror than comedy, so very different tone from the series.
erilar
Mar 17, 2013, 3:30:41 PM3/17/13
to
In article <ki4tej$a7m$1...@news.albasani.net>,
That was not a real Stargate series!
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
anim8rFSK
Mar 17, 2013, 3:59:52 PM3/17/13
to
In article <ki4v92$a7m$2...@news.albasani.net>,
As much as I like Kristen, she was the definite weakest link in
Forgetting Sarah Marshall.
Forgetting Sarah Marshall.
anim8rFSK
Mar 17, 2013, 4:00:42 PM3/17/13
to
In article <ki4tej$a7m$1...@news.albasani.net>,
Shouldn't you be thinking Stargate SG1 (the 'SG' stands for: STARGATE!)?
Your Name
Mar 17, 2013, 4:05:48 PM3/17/13
to
In article <drache-B5B498....@news.eternal-september.org>,
Yes it was, but they used the wrong name. It was Stargate: Voyager. ;-)
Obveeus
Mar 17, 2013, 4:07:03 PM3/17/13
to
to be the limp second fiddle actress she is compared with the female star of
the film.
EGK
Mar 17, 2013, 4:52:14 PM3/17/13
to
good things about it. Then I saw it and thought it was pretty blah. I
hardly laughed at all. On the other hand, I saw the unofficial sequel, Get
him To the Greek, and thought that was pretty funny.
William December Starr
Mar 17, 2013, 4:53:49 PM3/17/13
to
In article <drache-B5B498....@news.eternal-september.org>,
I ask this seriously, having seen assorted episodes of SG-1 and
Atlantis but never having been deeply into either show: why all
the hate for Stargate Universe?
-- wds
Atlantis but never having been deeply into either show: why all
the hate for Stargate Universe?
-- wds
Mason Barge
Mar 17, 2013, 6:17:26 PM3/17/13
to
Mason Barge
Mar 17, 2013, 6:21:07 PM3/17/13
to
due to lack of talent. Maybe she has that undefinable attribute of
being able to do tv and not movies. Or maybe she just aged badly.
But most of the teen (or "teen") stars who didn't make it as adults
actually weren't any good as teenagers, either. <cough> Molly
Ringwold</cough>
anim8rFSK
Mar 17, 2013, 6:34:08 PM3/17/13
to
BTR1701
Mar 17, 2013, 6:37:35 PM3/17/13
to
In article <ki57m0$f64$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:
She also had very little to do in that film compared to Kunis.
wrote:
anim8rFSK
Mar 17, 2013, 6:50:14 PM3/17/13
to
In article <ki5agt$9vd$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
Well, they ended Atlantis prematurely, and replaced it with Universe,
the concept of which seemed to be "Let's call it Stargate but have it be
a Voyager knock off with a bunch of people we've never seen before being
Lost In Space and making it as dark and dreary and miserable as the
worst of BSG and, hey, stick in a Dr. Smith character, too!"
And then toss in body swapping stones so people can appear in other
settings and use it as a bigger crutch than the holodeck ever was.
Try to imagine a show so incompetently produced and relentlessly awful
that I tired of it by episode 3 - try to wrap your mind around that
concept: "I" tired of it by episode 3. I, who made it all the way to
the end of Defiling Gravity.
Okay, got that? Well, SGU was worse than the mental picture I painted.
Far worse.
the concept of which seemed to be "Let's call it Stargate but have it be
a Voyager knock off with a bunch of people we've never seen before being
Lost In Space and making it as dark and dreary and miserable as the
worst of BSG and, hey, stick in a Dr. Smith character, too!"
And then toss in body swapping stones so people can appear in other
settings and use it as a bigger crutch than the holodeck ever was.
Try to imagine a show so incompetently produced and relentlessly awful
that I tired of it by episode 3 - try to wrap your mind around that
concept: "I" tired of it by episode 3. I, who made it all the way to
the end of Defiling Gravity.
Okay, got that? Well, SGU was worse than the mental picture I painted.
Far worse.
Nobody
Mar 17, 2013, 6:55:25 PM3/17/13
to
On 17 Mar 2013 16:53:49 -0400, wds...@panix.com (William December
Because you can't spell DISGUST without SGU! :-)
It was an awful, awful series IMHO. I couldn't get past the first few
episodes, so if it got better later on, I don't know.
It was an awful, awful series IMHO. I couldn't get past the first few
episodes, so if it got better later on, I don't know.
Nobody
Mar 17, 2013, 6:57:18 PM3/17/13
to
Bell supposed to be good in that?
Steve Bartman
Mar 17, 2013, 7:31:16 PM3/17/13
to
On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 15:50:14 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
wrote:
>Try to imagine a show so incompetently produced and relentlessly awful
>that I tired of it by episode 3 - try to wrap your mind around that
>concept: "I" tired of it by episode 3. I, who made it all the way to
>the end of Defiling Gravity.
>
>Okay, got that? Well, SGU was worse than the mental picture I painted.
>Far worse.
If you only watched three episodes you aren't qualified to have an
opinion here. The last half of season two they hit their stride and it
was a GREAT sci fi series. The questions posed in the last two eps
could have driven the series for 5-7 more years if the suits had any
guts.
It's the only Stargate I've never spent money on for DVDs and the one
I never will.
That said, with so many grown-up boys in this ng I'd think it would be
rated the best Stargate as it featured two of the finest breasts ever
seen in a sci fi--or any--series.
Steve
wrote:
>Try to imagine a show so incompetently produced and relentlessly awful
>that I tired of it by episode 3 - try to wrap your mind around that
>concept: "I" tired of it by episode 3. I, who made it all the way to
>the end of Defiling Gravity.
>
>Okay, got that? Well, SGU was worse than the mental picture I painted.
>Far worse.
opinion here. The last half of season two they hit their stride and it
was a GREAT sci fi series. The questions posed in the last two eps
could have driven the series for 5-7 more years if the suits had any
guts.
It's the only Stargate I've never spent money on for DVDs and the one
I never will.
That said, with so many grown-up boys in this ng I'd think it would be
rated the best Stargate as it featured two of the finest breasts ever
seen in a sci fi--or any--series.
Steve
Steve Bartman
Mar 17, 2013, 7:33:49 PM3/17/13
to
On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 06:55:25 +0800, Nobody <nob...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>It was an awful, awful series IMHO. I couldn't get past the first few
>episodes, so if it got better later on, I don't know.
IOW, you know nothing about the series. Just a few eps when they were
>It was an awful, awful series IMHO. I couldn't get past the first few
>episodes, so if it got better later on, I don't know.
feeling things out. Watch the first two eps of SG1. You get Carter as
a ball-busting ex-fighter jock with her reproductive organs on the
inside, and her wearing a low-cut Mongol princess suit. Think how much
you missed if you stopped there.
Steve
Your Name
Mar 17, 2013, 8:47:59 PM3/17/13
to
In article <u7gck8t2ojtqakj4t...@4ax.com>, Mason Barge
<mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
<snip>
being the Olsen twins and Shannen Dogherty ... all completely talentless.
:-\
<mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> But most of the teen (or "teen") stars who didn't make it as adults
> actually weren't any good as teenagers, either. <cough> Molly
> Ringwold</cough>
You can go back further than just teens. Try child stars, "good" examples
> But most of the teen (or "teen") stars who didn't make it as adults
> actually weren't any good as teenagers, either. <cough> Molly
> Ringwold</cough>
being the Olsen twins and Shannen Dogherty ... all completely talentless.
:-\
Your Name
Mar 17, 2013, 8:55:02 PM3/17/13
to
In article <anim8rfsk-61BAC...@news.easynews.com>, anim8rFSK
To be fair:
- Stargate: Atlantis was also "a bunch of people we've never seen
before".
- The animated Stargate: Infinity series was Lost in Space too,
although more a knock-off of Sliders.
- the silly body-swapping stones weren't a product of SGU. They
were brought in towards the end of the "Stargate: SG-1" series
when that was running on empty.
:-)
<anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> In article <ki5agt$9vd$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
> > In article <drache-B5B498....@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> said:
> > > "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> > >> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> No, Orci is the real enemy.
> > >>
> > >> Every time you say that, I think Stargate: SGU.
> > >
> > > That was not a real Stargate series!
> >
> > I ask this seriously, having seen assorted episodes of SG-1 and
> > Atlantis but never having been deeply into either show: why all
> > the hate for Stargate Universe?
>
> Well, they ended Atlantis prematurely, and replaced it with Universe,
> the concept of which seemed to be "Let's call it Stargate but have it be
> a Voyager knock off with a bunch of people we've never seen before being
> Lost In Space and making it as dark and dreary and miserable as the
> worst of BSG and, hey, stick in a Dr. Smith character, too!"
>
> And then toss in body swapping stones so people can appear in other
> settings and use it as a bigger crutch than the holodeck ever was.
<snip>
> In article <ki5agt$9vd$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
> > In article <drache-B5B498....@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> said:
> > > "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> > >> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> No, Orci is the real enemy.
> > >>
> > >> Every time you say that, I think Stargate: SGU.
> > >
> > > That was not a real Stargate series!
> >
> > I ask this seriously, having seen assorted episodes of SG-1 and
> > Atlantis but never having been deeply into either show: why all
> > the hate for Stargate Universe?
>
> Well, they ended Atlantis prematurely, and replaced it with Universe,
> the concept of which seemed to be "Let's call it Stargate but have it be
> a Voyager knock off with a bunch of people we've never seen before being
> Lost In Space and making it as dark and dreary and miserable as the
> worst of BSG and, hey, stick in a Dr. Smith character, too!"
>
> And then toss in body swapping stones so people can appear in other
> settings and use it as a bigger crutch than the holodeck ever was.
To be fair:
- Stargate: Atlantis was also "a bunch of people we've never seen
before".
- The animated Stargate: Infinity series was Lost in Space too,
although more a knock-off of Sliders.
- the silly body-swapping stones weren't a product of SGU. They
were brought in towards the end of the "Stargate: SG-1" series
when that was running on empty.
:-)
trotsky
Mar 17, 2013, 8:10:41 PM3/17/13
to
piece of cake. LOL!!!!
--
Never post something on the internet unless you have a point of
reference. You will look like a moron otherwise.
Obveeus
Mar 17, 2013, 8:20:42 PM3/17/13
to
film's promotion around Kristen Bell for no logical reason at all.
Nobody
Mar 17, 2013, 8:21:57 PM3/17/13
to
On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 18:33:49 -0500, Steve Bartman <sbar...@visi.com>
wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 06:55:25 +0800, Nobody <nob...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>>It was an awful, awful series IMHO. I couldn't get past the first few
>>episodes, so if it got better later on, I don't know.
>
>IOW, you know nothing about the series. Just a few eps when they were
>feeling things out.
I wouldn't say "nothing" -- I knew enough to not want to watch any
more of it. Which says something, and which was also an answer to the
question asked by the previous poster. Like I said, it's my 2 cents,
and I qualified it with how many episodes I could tolerate before
giving up on it.
>Watch the first two eps of SG1. You get Carter as
>a ball-busting ex-fighter jock with her reproductive organs on the
>inside, and her wearing a low-cut Mongol princess suit. Think how much
>you missed if you stopped there.
Whatever the first two episodes of SG1 were, I didn't dislike them,
which was the reason I kept giving it a chance by continuing to watch.
My experience with SGU was quite the opposite.
wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 06:55:25 +0800, Nobody <nob...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>>It was an awful, awful series IMHO. I couldn't get past the first few
>>episodes, so if it got better later on, I don't know.
>
>IOW, you know nothing about the series. Just a few eps when they were
>feeling things out.
more of it. Which says something, and which was also an answer to the
question asked by the previous poster. Like I said, it's my 2 cents,
and I qualified it with how many episodes I could tolerate before
giving up on it.
>Watch the first two eps of SG1. You get Carter as
>a ball-busting ex-fighter jock with her reproductive organs on the
>inside, and her wearing a low-cut Mongol princess suit. Think how much
>you missed if you stopped there.
which was the reason I kept giving it a chance by continuing to watch.
My experience with SGU was quite the opposite.
Adam H. Kerman
Mar 17, 2013, 8:53:56 PM3/17/13
to
Adam H. Kerman
Mar 17, 2013, 8:55:25 PM3/17/13
to
Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote:
>erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
>>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>Merrick Baldelli <mbal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>Your...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
>>>>>>And because he's rushing around supposedly doing 95 million different
>>>>>>things at once, all of what he's involved with is like the brown
>>>>>>stuff that comes out the other end of that kid ... another bad sign
>>>>>>for the Star Wars franchise. :-(
>>>>>I seriously think he also needs to get rid of the two clowns
>>>>>he keeps around for licking his ass after a particularly gruesome case
>>>>>of explosive diarrhea: Orci and Kurtzman. They don't help matters at
>>>>>ALL.
>>>>No, Orci is the real enemy.
>>>Every time you say that, I think Stargate: SGU.
>>That was not a real Stargate series!
>Yes it was, but they used the wrong name. It was Stargate: Voyager. ;-)
Actually, it was Stargate: Lost in Space.
>>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>Merrick Baldelli <mbal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>Your...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
>>>>>>And because he's rushing around supposedly doing 95 million different
>>>>>>things at once, all of what he's involved with is like the brown
>>>>>>stuff that comes out the other end of that kid ... another bad sign
>>>>>>for the Star Wars franchise. :-(
>>>>>I seriously think he also needs to get rid of the two clowns
>>>>>he keeps around for licking his ass after a particularly gruesome case
>>>>>of explosive diarrhea: Orci and Kurtzman. They don't help matters at
>>>>>ALL.
>>>>No, Orci is the real enemy.
>>>Every time you say that, I think Stargate: SGU.
>>That was not a real Stargate series!
>Yes it was, but they used the wrong name. It was Stargate: Voyager. ;-)
Adam H. Kerman
Mar 17, 2013, 8:56:46 PM3/17/13
to
Adam H. Kerman
Mar 17, 2013, 9:03:16 PM3/17/13
to
dropped as an adult), and even Ronnie Howard who knew he wanted to
direct at age 6.
Most impressive was Jackie Coogan, although he didn't have a big career
as an adult I suppose, endless reruns of The Addams Family notwithstanding.
Need a ruling here: Having played Walter Denton forever, did Richard Crenna
count as a child actor?
Adam H. Kerman
Mar 17, 2013, 9:04:39 PM3/17/13
to
characters and I didn't believe the plots.
Adam H. Kerman
Mar 17, 2013, 9:06:41 PM3/17/13
to
David Johnston
Mar 17, 2013, 9:46:04 PM3/17/13
to
anim8rFSK
Mar 18, 2013, 1:07:09 AM3/18/13
to
In article
<YourName-180...@203-118-187-106.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
Well, somewhat; they had the Faux Weir and McKay. I thought this was a
mistake in SGA as well, especially as people from SG1 were lobbying to
be on it. Adam Baldwin said publicly he'd like to reprise his SG1
character. Instead of nobodys and pretty much non-actors, imagine
Baldwin, and some of the Tokra (send Sam's dad out instead of killing
him off). I thought the desnaked Osiris would go; with her knowledge
residue she'd have been a great fit, but instead they just forgot she
ever existed.
occurrence was an even worse idea.
<YourName-180...@203-118-187-106.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
mistake in SGA as well, especially as people from SG1 were lobbying to
be on it. Adam Baldwin said publicly he'd like to reprise his SG1
character. Instead of nobodys and pretty much non-actors, imagine
Baldwin, and some of the Tokra (send Sam's dad out instead of killing
him off). I thought the desnaked Osiris would go; with her knowledge
residue she'd have been a great fit, but instead they just forgot she
ever existed.
>
> - The animated Stargate: Infinity series was Lost in Space too,
> although more a knock-off of Sliders.
I've never been able to sit through a whole episode.
> - The animated Stargate: Infinity series was Lost in Space too,
> although more a knock-off of Sliders.
>
> - the silly body-swapping stones weren't a product of SGU. They
> were brought in towards the end of the "Stargate: SG-1" series
> when that was running on empty.
>
> :-)
Agreed, but they were a lousy idea; bringing them in as an everyday
> - the silly body-swapping stones weren't a product of SGU. They
> were brought in towards the end of the "Stargate: SG-1" series
> when that was running on empty.
>
> :-)
occurrence was an even worse idea.
anim8rFSK
Mar 18, 2013, 1:07:56 AM3/18/13
to
anim8rFSK
Mar 18, 2013, 1:08:08 AM3/18/13
to
In article <c9ick89u8agbcalfh...@4ax.com>,
Nobody <nob...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> On 17 Mar 2013 16:53:49 -0400, wds...@panix.com (William December
> Starr) wrote:
>
> >In article <drache-B5B498....@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> said:
> >> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> >>> Every time you say that, I think Stargate: SGU.
> >>
> >> That was not a real Stargate series!
> >
> >I ask this seriously, having seen assorted episodes of SG-1 and
> >Atlantis but never having been deeply into either show: why all
> >the hate for Stargate Universe?
>
> Because you can't spell DISGUST without SGU! :-)
Yay! :D
> On 17 Mar 2013 16:53:49 -0400, wds...@panix.com (William December
> Starr) wrote:
>
> >In article <drache-B5B498....@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> said:
> >> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> >>> Every time you say that, I think Stargate: SGU.
> >>
> >> That was not a real Stargate series!
> >
> >I ask this seriously, having seen assorted episodes of SG-1 and
> >Atlantis but never having been deeply into either show: why all
> >the hate for Stargate Universe?
>
> Because you can't spell DISGUST without SGU! :-)
>
> It was an awful, awful series IMHO. I couldn't get past the first few
> episodes, so if it got better later on, I don't know.
> It was an awful, awful series IMHO. I couldn't get past the first few
> episodes, so if it got better later on, I don't know.
anim8rFSK
Mar 18, 2013, 1:10:46 AM3/18/13
to
In article <ki5p4k$41u$5...@news.albasani.net>,
I'm going to say 'no' - he didn't begin on radio until he was 20, and
didn't appear on TV until he was 26.
didn't appear on TV until he was 26.
Murdoc
Mar 18, 2013, 1:17:52 AM3/18/13
to
Your Name
Mar 18, 2013, 2:32:01 AM3/18/13
to
In article <anim8rfsk-6CE84...@news.easynews.com>, anim8rFSK
From memory they were planning to send others, but then discovered the
original team couldn't get back ... or something like that. :-)
You can't send the main actors since then they would have been "Lost in
Space" and that would make it difficult for a potential TV-movie ... you'd
somehow have to explain how they got back or base it earlier in the
timeline.
> > - The animated Stargate: Infinity series was Lost in Space too,
> > although more a knock-off of Sliders.
>
> I've never been able to sit through a whole episode.
I only ever saw a couple of episodes due to it being in the after-school
timeslot, so I only saw it when I didn't have to go out visiting
customers.
original team couldn't get back ... or something like that. :-)
You can't send the main actors since then they would have been "Lost in
Space" and that would make it difficult for a potential TV-movie ... you'd
somehow have to explain how they got back or base it earlier in the
timeline.
> > - The animated Stargate: Infinity series was Lost in Space too,
> > although more a knock-off of Sliders.
>
> I've never been able to sit through a whole episode.
timeslot, so I only saw it when I didn't have to go out visiting
customers.
David Johnston
Mar 18, 2013, 2:26:10 AM3/18/13
to
shawn
Mar 18, 2013, 8:11:37 AM3/18/13
to
On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 18:31:16 -0500, Steve Bartman <sbar...@visi.com>
wrote:
So you really think David Blue (Eli Wallace) looked that good?
I did like the series but I do think they went a bit too dark in the
series. They were constantly going from one disaster to another and
the often the only way out was to run away. That is too far away from
the standard Stargate stories (from both SG1 and SGA.)
wrote:
I did like the series but I do think they went a bit too dark in the
series. They were constantly going from one disaster to another and
the often the only way out was to run away. That is too far away from
the standard Stargate stories (from both SG1 and SGA.)
Message has been deleted
Merrick Baldelli
Mar 18, 2013, 8:40:41 AM3/18/13
to
On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 05:51:32 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
wrote:
>In article <7e8bk8dnao246d2nq...@4ax.com>,
> Merrick Baldelli <mbal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 09:09:48 +1200, Your...@YourISP.com (Your Name)
together. He doesn't seem to show much intelligence other than to be
licking Abrams' ass when the spotlight is put on him. And any time
that he demonstrates any intelligence, it seems like he's being a sock
puppet for Abrams.
--
-=-=-/ )=*=-='=-.-'-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
_( (_ , '_ * . Merrick Baldelli
(((\ \> /_1 `
(\\\\ \_/ /
-=-\ /-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
\ _/ You can't spell 'disgust' without
/ / 'SGU' - Anim8rFSK
wrote:
>In article <7e8bk8dnao246d2nq...@4ax.com>,
> Merrick Baldelli <mbal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 09:09:48 +1200, Your...@YourISP.com (Your Name)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >And because he's rushing around supposedly doing 95 million different
>> >things at once, all of what he's involved with is like the brown stuff
>> >that comes out the other end of that kid ... another bad sign for the Star
>> >Wars franchise. :-(
>>
>> I seriously think he also needs to get rid of the two clowns
>> he keeps around for licking his ass after a particularly gruesome case
>> of explosive diarrhea: Orci and Kurtzman. They don't help matters at
>> ALL.
>
>>
>> >And because he's rushing around supposedly doing 95 million different
>> >things at once, all of what he's involved with is like the brown stuff
>> >that comes out the other end of that kid ... another bad sign for the Star
>> >Wars franchise. :-(
>>
>> I seriously think he also needs to get rid of the two clowns
>> he keeps around for licking his ass after a particularly gruesome case
>> of explosive diarrhea: Orci and Kurtzman. They don't help matters at
>> ALL.
>
>No, Orci is the real enemy.
Kurtzman is a 'yes man' whenever the three of them are
together. He doesn't seem to show much intelligence other than to be
licking Abrams' ass when the spotlight is put on him. And any time
that he demonstrates any intelligence, it seems like he's being a sock
puppet for Abrams.
--
-=-=-/ )=*=-='=-.-'-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
_( (_ , '_ * . Merrick Baldelli
(((\ \> /_1 `
(\\\\ \_/ /
-=-\ /-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
\ _/ You can't spell 'disgust' without
/ / 'SGU' - Anim8rFSK
Merrick Baldelli
Mar 18, 2013, 8:40:41 AM3/18/13
to
On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 12:55:02 +1200, Your...@YourISP.com (Your Name)
wrote:
> - the silly body-swapping stones weren't a product of SGU. They
> were brought in towards the end of the "Stargate: SG-1" series
> when that was running on empty.
>
>:-)
Yes and we see how smashingly well that went in SGU, didn't
we?
wrote:
> - the silly body-swapping stones weren't a product of SGU. They
> were brought in towards the end of the "Stargate: SG-1" series
> when that was running on empty.
>
>:-)
we?
Message has been deleted
anim8rFSK
Mar 18, 2013, 10:41:38 AM3/18/13
to
In article
<YourName-180...@203-118-187-184.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
None of the people suggested were main actors. SG1 was overflowing with
recurring characters they could have sent instead of nobodys.
<YourName-180...@203-118-187-184.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
recurring characters they could have sent instead of nobodys.
anim8rFSK
Mar 18, 2013, 10:42:49 AM3/18/13
to
In article <nosp6f9hogdu.widqiq5lg986$.d...@40tude.net>,
Just Weir. They had the real Weir on SG1, and swapped her out for the
Faux Weir when she went to Atlantis. By all accounts the real Weir
actress never was told why she was dropped.
Faux Weir when she went to Atlantis. By all accounts the real Weir
actress never was told why she was dropped.
anim8rFSK
Mar 18, 2013, 10:44:51 AM3/18/13
to
In article <su0ek8lm4665kqt6u...@4ax.com>,
anything, anywhere.
The last half of season two they hit their stride and it
> >was a GREAT sci fi series. The questions posed in the last two eps
> >could have driven the series for 5-7 more years if the suits had any
> >guts.
> >
> >It's the only Stargate I've never spent money on for DVDs and the one
> >I never will.
Um ... yeah, okay, you're Clodreamer stupid. This is why you're
killfiled.
> >That said, with so many grown-up boys in this ng I'd think it would be
> >rated the best Stargate as it featured two of the finest breasts ever
> >seen in a sci fi--or any--series.
> >
>
> So you really think David Blue (Eli Wallace) looked that good?
>
>
> I did like the series but I do think they went a bit too dark in the
> series. They were constantly going from one disaster to another and
> the often the only way out was to run away. That is too far away from
> the standard Stargate stories (from both SG1 and SGA.)
shawn <nanof...@gNOTmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 18:31:16 -0500, Steve Bartman <sbar...@visi.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 15:50:14 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Try to imagine a show so incompetently produced and relentlessly awful
> >>that I tired of it by episode 3 - try to wrap your mind around that
> >>concept: "I" tired of it by episode 3. I, who made it all the way to
> >>the end of Defiling Gravity.
> >>
> >>Okay, got that? Well, SGU was worse than the mental picture I painted.
> >>Far worse.
> >
> >If you only watched three episodes you aren't qualified to have an
> >opinion here.
If we go by lack of knowledge, you aren't entitled to have an opinion on
> On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 18:31:16 -0500, Steve Bartman <sbar...@visi.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 15:50:14 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Try to imagine a show so incompetently produced and relentlessly awful
> >>that I tired of it by episode 3 - try to wrap your mind around that
> >>concept: "I" tired of it by episode 3. I, who made it all the way to
> >>the end of Defiling Gravity.
> >>
> >>Okay, got that? Well, SGU was worse than the mental picture I painted.
> >>Far worse.
> >
> >If you only watched three episodes you aren't qualified to have an
> >opinion here.
anything, anywhere.
The last half of season two they hit their stride and it
> >was a GREAT sci fi series. The questions posed in the last two eps
> >could have driven the series for 5-7 more years if the suits had any
> >guts.
> >
> >It's the only Stargate I've never spent money on for DVDs and the one
> >I never will.
killfiled.
> >That said, with so many grown-up boys in this ng I'd think it would be
> >rated the best Stargate as it featured two of the finest breasts ever
> >seen in a sci fi--or any--series.
> >
>
> So you really think David Blue (Eli Wallace) looked that good?
>
>
> I did like the series but I do think they went a bit too dark in the
> series. They were constantly going from one disaster to another and
> the often the only way out was to run away. That is too far away from
> the standard Stargate stories (from both SG1 and SGA.)
Adam H. Kerman
Mar 18, 2013, 10:53:48 AM3/18/13
to
Message has been deleted
Steve Bartman
Mar 18, 2013, 10:57:39 AM3/18/13
to
On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 08:11:37 -0400, shawn <nanof...@gNOTmail.com>
>I did like the series but I do think they went a bit too dark in the
>series. They were constantly going from one disaster to another and
>the often the only way out was to run away. That is too far away from
>the standard Stargate stories (from both SG1 and SGA.)
Dark it was. The stones to me were the biggest trap-door. Too easy,
but they were big budget band-aids I guess. All those scenes they
could shoot in the suburbs, or in old SG1 sets. I liked the early eps
where they were exploring the ship, solving air and water disasters. I
could have done without some of the soap (SG1 is ruined if Sam and
Jack ever get it on), and some of the Dr. Smith stuff. But overall it
was Stargate to me, and the direction they were going at the end was
great. I would have loved to see how Eli dealt with being awake,
alone.
And a ship that refuels by flying almost through a star? How great is
that?
Steve
wrote:
>On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 18:31:16 -0500, Steve Bartman <sbar...@visi.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 15:50:14 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Try to imagine a show so incompetently produced and relentlessly awful
>>>that I tired of it by episode 3 - try to wrap your mind around that
>>>concept: "I" tired of it by episode 3. I, who made it all the way to
>>>the end of Defiling Gravity.
>>>
>>>Okay, got that? Well, SGU was worse than the mental picture I painted.
>>>Far worse.
>>
>>If you only watched three episodes you aren't qualified to have an
>>opinion here. The last half of season two they hit their stride and it
>>was a GREAT sci fi series. The questions posed in the last two eps
>>could have driven the series for 5-7 more years if the suits had any
>>guts.
>>
>>It's the only Stargate I've never spent money on for DVDs and the one
>>I never will.
>>
>>That said, with so many grown-up boys in this ng I'd think it would be
>>rated the best Stargate as it featured two of the finest breasts ever
>>seen in a sci fi--or any--series.
>>
>
>So you really think David Blue (Eli Wallace) looked that good?
>
Hork, hork.
>On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 18:31:16 -0500, Steve Bartman <sbar...@visi.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 15:50:14 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Try to imagine a show so incompetently produced and relentlessly awful
>>>that I tired of it by episode 3 - try to wrap your mind around that
>>>concept: "I" tired of it by episode 3. I, who made it all the way to
>>>the end of Defiling Gravity.
>>>
>>>Okay, got that? Well, SGU was worse than the mental picture I painted.
>>>Far worse.
>>
>>If you only watched three episodes you aren't qualified to have an
>>opinion here. The last half of season two they hit their stride and it
>>was a GREAT sci fi series. The questions posed in the last two eps
>>could have driven the series for 5-7 more years if the suits had any
>>guts.
>>
>>It's the only Stargate I've never spent money on for DVDs and the one
>>I never will.
>>
>>That said, with so many grown-up boys in this ng I'd think it would be
>>rated the best Stargate as it featured two of the finest breasts ever
>>seen in a sci fi--or any--series.
>>
>
>So you really think David Blue (Eli Wallace) looked that good?
>
>I did like the series but I do think they went a bit too dark in the
>series. They were constantly going from one disaster to another and
>the often the only way out was to run away. That is too far away from
>the standard Stargate stories (from both SG1 and SGA.)
but they were big budget band-aids I guess. All those scenes they
could shoot in the suburbs, or in old SG1 sets. I liked the early eps
where they were exploring the ship, solving air and water disasters. I
could have done without some of the soap (SG1 is ruined if Sam and
Jack ever get it on), and some of the Dr. Smith stuff. But overall it
was Stargate to me, and the direction they were going at the end was
great. I would have loved to see how Eli dealt with being awake,
alone.
And a ship that refuels by flying almost through a star? How great is
that?
Steve
Steve Bartman
Mar 18, 2013, 11:03:38 AM3/18/13
to
On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 08:21:57 +0800, Nobody <nob...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 18:33:49 -0500, Steve Bartman <sbar...@visi.com>
>wrote:
>>feeling things out.
>
>I wouldn't say "nothing" -- I knew enough to not want to watch any
>more of it.
Fine. But you aren't able to judge the series. In totality it was far
different than the first two eps.
Which says something, and which was also an answer to the
>question asked by the previous poster. Like I said, it's my 2 cents,
>and I qualified it with how many episodes I could tolerate before
>giving up on it.
True, but that isn't what you said. You said it was "an awful, awful
series." You didn't see the series.
>>Watch the first two eps of SG1. You get Carter as
>>a ball-busting ex-fighter jock with her reproductive organs on the
>>inside, and her wearing a low-cut Mongol princess suit. Think how much
>>you missed if you stopped there.
>
>Whatever the first two episodes of SG1 were, I didn't dislike them,
>which was the reason I kept giving it a chance by continuing to watch.
>My experience with SGU was quite the opposite.
I was wrong. The mongol ep wasn't second. Jack's side-kick Kowalski
getting the back of his head sliced off was second.
Those first three eps were good, I agree. But not nearly as good as
Seasons 2-3, where SG1 hit the sweet spot IMO.
Steve
>On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 18:33:49 -0500, Steve Bartman <sbar...@visi.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 06:55:25 +0800, Nobody <nob...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>
>>>It was an awful, awful series IMHO. I couldn't get past the first few
>>>episodes, so if it got better later on, I don't know.
>>
>>IOW, you know nothing about the series. Just a few eps when they were
>>On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 06:55:25 +0800, Nobody <nob...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>
>>>It was an awful, awful series IMHO. I couldn't get past the first few
>>>episodes, so if it got better later on, I don't know.
>>
>>feeling things out.
>
>I wouldn't say "nothing" -- I knew enough to not want to watch any
>more of it.
Fine. But you aren't able to judge the series. In totality it was far
different than the first two eps.
Which says something, and which was also an answer to the
>question asked by the previous poster. Like I said, it's my 2 cents,
>and I qualified it with how many episodes I could tolerate before
>giving up on it.
True, but that isn't what you said. You said it was "an awful, awful
series." You didn't see the series.
>>Watch the first two eps of SG1. You get Carter as
>>a ball-busting ex-fighter jock with her reproductive organs on the
>>inside, and her wearing a low-cut Mongol princess suit. Think how much
>>you missed if you stopped there.
>
>Whatever the first two episodes of SG1 were, I didn't dislike them,
>which was the reason I kept giving it a chance by continuing to watch.
>My experience with SGU was quite the opposite.
I was wrong. The mongol ep wasn't second. Jack's side-kick Kowalski
getting the back of his head sliced off was second.
Those first three eps were good, I agree. But not nearly as good as
Seasons 2-3, where SG1 hit the sweet spot IMO.
Steve
Steve Bartman
Mar 18, 2013, 11:09:00 AM3/18/13
to
On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 07:44:51 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
wrote:
>In article <su0ek8lm4665kqt6u...@4ax.com>,
> shawn <nanof...@gNOTmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 18:31:16 -0500, Steve Bartman <sbar...@visi.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 15:50:14 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>Try to imagine a show so incompetently produced and relentlessly awful
>> >>that I tired of it by episode 3 - try to wrap your mind around that
>> >>concept: "I" tired of it by episode 3. I, who made it all the way to
>> >>the end of Defiling Gravity.
>> >>
>> >>Okay, got that? Well, SGU was worse than the mental picture I painted.
>> >>Far worse.
>> >
>> >If you only watched three episodes you aren't qualified to have an
>> >opinion here.
>
>If we go by lack of knowledge, you aren't entitled to have an opinion on
>anything, anywhere.
>
> The last half of season two they hit their stride and it
>> >was a GREAT sci fi series. The questions posed in the last two eps
>> >could have driven the series for 5-7 more years if the suits had any
>> >guts.
>> >
>> >It's the only Stargate I've never spent money on for DVDs and the one
>> >I never will.
>
>Um ... yeah, okay, you're Clodreamer stupid. This is why you're
>killfiled.
Drinking again?
Steve
wrote:
>In article <su0ek8lm4665kqt6u...@4ax.com>,
> shawn <nanof...@gNOTmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 18:31:16 -0500, Steve Bartman <sbar...@visi.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 15:50:14 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>Try to imagine a show so incompetently produced and relentlessly awful
>> >>that I tired of it by episode 3 - try to wrap your mind around that
>> >>concept: "I" tired of it by episode 3. I, who made it all the way to
>> >>the end of Defiling Gravity.
>> >>
>> >>Okay, got that? Well, SGU was worse than the mental picture I painted.
>> >>Far worse.
>> >
>> >If you only watched three episodes you aren't qualified to have an
>> >opinion here.
>
>If we go by lack of knowledge, you aren't entitled to have an opinion on
>anything, anywhere.
>
> The last half of season two they hit their stride and it
>> >was a GREAT sci fi series. The questions posed in the last two eps
>> >could have driven the series for 5-7 more years if the suits had any
>> >guts.
>> >
>> >It's the only Stargate I've never spent money on for DVDs and the one
>> >I never will.
>
>Um ... yeah, okay, you're Clodreamer stupid. This is why you're
>killfiled.
Steve
shawn
Mar 18, 2013, 12:06:40 PM3/18/13
to
On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 07:42:49 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
I didn't dislike the new Weir but I do wish they had kept the
original. It felt odd to suddenly have a new person playing the role,
especially since the original had done a fine job.
original. It felt odd to suddenly have a new person playing the role,
especially since the original had done a fine job.
anim8rFSK
Mar 18, 2013, 12:08:36 PM3/18/13
to
icebreaker
Mar 18, 2013, 12:39:36 PM3/18/13
to
"Mason Barge" wrote in message
news:a6gck8tffpk880q7g...@4ax.com...
On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 16:07:03 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
That she was.
news:a6gck8tffpk880q7g...@4ax.com...
On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 16:07:03 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> Remysun <remys...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>On Mar 15, 12:17 pm, David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Most direct to DVD efforts are done by people who don't know what
>>>>they're doing or don't care. VM already has a script they like,
>>>>experience doing a low-budget show, and it's a labor of love for them.
>>>>It'll be fine.
>>
>>>You're killing me on the labor of love stuff. Kristen knows she's
>>>gonna play out from popping a kid, even if just from leaving Katherine
>>>Heigl the rom coms all to herself. This kickstarter stuff is just a
>>>way to gauge the ROI.
>>
>> The only one that was slightly clever was Forgetting Sarah Marshall, but
>> others
>> who have seen that have said it's less awful than other bad romcoms. I
>> was
>> tempted to see it because she was in it and because it had the cleverest
>> marketing campaign I'd seen in some time, but I resisted.
>
>FORGETTING SARAH MARSHAL was a good film, but it also reveals Kristen Bell
>to be the limp second fiddle actress she is compared with the female star
>of
>the film.
Mila Kunis was -- sorry to talk like a teenager -- totally awesome.
>>>On Mar 15, 12:17 pm, David <dimla...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Most direct to DVD efforts are done by people who don't know what
>>>>they're doing or don't care. VM already has a script they like,
>>>>experience doing a low-budget show, and it's a labor of love for them.
>>>>It'll be fine.
>>
>>>You're killing me on the labor of love stuff. Kristen knows she's
>>>gonna play out from popping a kid, even if just from leaving Katherine
>>>Heigl the rom coms all to herself. This kickstarter stuff is just a
>>>way to gauge the ROI.
>>
>> The only one that was slightly clever was Forgetting Sarah Marshall, but
>> others
>> who have seen that have said it's less awful than other bad romcoms. I
>> was
>> tempted to see it because she was in it and because it had the cleverest
>> marketing campaign I'd seen in some time, but I resisted.
>
>FORGETTING SARAH MARSHAL was a good film, but it also reveals Kristen Bell
>to be the limp second fiddle actress she is compared with the female star
>of
>the film.
That she was.
anim8rFSK
Mar 18, 2013, 2:05:45 PM3/18/13
to
In article <1reek8t8t5eh72dl2...@4ax.com>,
Yeah. And it felt like such a totally different character that they
lost their one big connection to the original show.
lost their one big connection to the original show.
erilar
Mar 18, 2013, 2:28:53 PM3/18/13
to
In article <ki5agt$9vd$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
> In article <drache-B5B498....@news.eternal-september.org>,
> erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> said:
>
> > "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> >> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> No, Orci is the real enemy.
> >>
> >> Every time you say that, I think Stargate: SGU.
> >
> > That was not a real Stargate series!
>
> I ask this seriously, having seen assorted episodes of SG-1 and
> Atlantis but never having been deeply into either show: why all
> the hate for Stargate Universe?
>
> -- wds
wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
> In article <drache-B5B498....@news.eternal-september.org>,
> erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> said:
>
> > "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> >> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> No, Orci is the real enemy.
> >>
> >> Every time you say that, I think Stargate: SGU.
> >
> > That was not a real Stargate series!
>
> I ask this seriously, having seen assorted episodes of SG-1 and
> Atlantis but never having been deeply into either show: why all
> the hate for Stargate Universe?
>
It was agonizingly boring, with dull, unsympathetic characters, and
scripts that were even worse.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
erilar
Mar 18, 2013, 2:29:32 PM3/18/13
to
In article <ki5ooe$41u$4...@news.albasani.net>,
So did the better ones.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
> Nobody <nob...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> >wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>
> >>I ask this seriously, having seen assorted episodes of SG-1 and
> >>Atlantis but never having been deeply into either show: why all
> >>the hate for Stargate Universe?
>
> >wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>
> >>I ask this seriously, having seen assorted episodes of SG-1 and
> >>Atlantis but never having been deeply into either show: why all
> >>the hate for Stargate Universe?
>
> >Because you can't spell DISGUST without SGU! :-)
>
>
> >It was an awful, awful series IMHO. I couldn't get past the first few
> >episodes, so if it got better later on, I don't know.
>
> It got cancelled.
> >episodes, so if it got better later on, I don't know.
>
So did the better ones.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
Horace LaBadie
Mar 18, 2013, 3:05:38 PM3/18/13
to
In article <drache-3467BD....@news.eternal-september.org>,
I could never figure why anyone would mount an expedition in which
everyone was either incompetent, irrational, and or/insubordinate.
everyone was either incompetent, irrational, and or/insubordinate.
Mason Barge
Mar 18, 2013, 3:59:11 PM3/18/13
to
On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 12:47:59 +1200, Your...@YourISP.com (Your Name)
wrote:
>In article <u7gck8t2ojtqakj4t...@4ax.com>, Mason Barge
Olsen twins. But Molly R. is indeed a more "talented actress" than
those three.
wrote:
>In article <u7gck8t2ojtqakj4t...@4ax.com>, Mason Barge
><mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
><snip>
>>
>> But most of the teen (or "teen") stars who didn't make it as adults
>> actually weren't any good as teenagers, either. <cough> Molly
>> Ringwold</cough>
>
>You can go back further than just teens. Try child stars, "good" examples
>being the Olsen twins and Shannen Dogherty ... all completely talentless.
>:-\
Well you got me there. It's an age thing - I have never seen the
>>
><snip>
>>
>> But most of the teen (or "teen") stars who didn't make it as adults
>> actually weren't any good as teenagers, either. <cough> Molly
>> Ringwold</cough>
>
>You can go back further than just teens. Try child stars, "good" examples
>being the Olsen twins and Shannen Dogherty ... all completely talentless.
>:-\
Olsen twins. But Molly R. is indeed a more "talented actress" than
those three.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages