seaQuest RIP
Sandra Ballasch
As someone who liked the original premise I can't say I'm sorry to see the
current version gone, but I do feel that the cast and crew deserve at
least some recognition of their work. The show didn't fail because of the
cast or crew it failed because of the combined efforts of the network,
various producers (especially Patrick Hasburgh who has claimed
responsibility for this season's direction) and sloppy writing. The
contempt shown for continuity and rationality in the plotting would have
been enough to kill any other show. Those of us who stuck with it did so
because we liked the characters (at least until this year's writers got
hold of them) enough to tolerate the rest. In my opinion, the acting was
generally excellent across the board, even in the face of irrational and
incoherent writing. However, constant changes in the cast and the show's
premise in conjunction with musical producers and constant pre-emption,
would have doomed even the best show on earth.
I did get a few pieces of information for future reference from this
experience - the names of a few writers. producers and a network to avoid
and some actors to look out for.
Sandra Ballasch
RON MURILLO
it's unfortunate the series is being cut off like this. They had a lot
to live down from last year and that reputation probably had as much to
do with people not tuning in as the competition IMHO. Good luck, cast
and crew.
Paul Browne
Sandra Ballasch (ball...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu) wrote:
: Well the inevitable has finally happened - seaQuest had the plug pulled.
: current version gone, but I do feel that the cast and crew deserve at
...Understand there are those SQ fans who disagree with you, besides
myself they include Ron Murillo and the infamous NY Times tv critic, on
not being sorry the current version's gone...
least some recognition of their work. The show didn't fail because of the
: cast or crew it failed because of the combined efforts of the network,
: various producers (especially Patrick Hasburgh who has claimed
: responsibility for this season's direction) and sloppy writing. The
...I doubt Patrick Hasburgh intentionally killed SQ and thereby put
himself out of the job. Although he didn't create SQ-as mentioned here
and elsewhere Rockne O'Bannon did-Hasburgh was with the show from the
beginning I believe so if you're blaming him for season 3 you should also
credit him for season 1. Again not all SQ fans disliked this season's
direction but apparently there weren't enough of us...As for the network,
who knows? NBC is known as the network that cancelled Star Trek and they
did unwisely move SQ...
: contempt shown for continuity and rationality in the plotting would have
: been enough to kill any other show. Those of us who stuck with it did so
: because we liked the characters (at least until this year's writers got
: hold of them) enough to tolerate the rest. In my opinion, the acting was
: generally excellent across the board, even in the face of irrational and
: incoherent writing. However, constant changes in the cast and the show's
: premise in conjunction with musical producers and constant pre-emption,
: would have doomed even the best show on earth.
...Again there are those of us who disagree with you and liked this
season. And remember that cast changes don't always kill a show, in fact
they improved "M*A*S*H" and other shows. I'll agree with you on the
constant pre-emptions and add a bad timeslot this year as reasons for low
ratings. Hasburgh again was there from the beginning so he was hardly a
"musical" producer and in fact kept the show going as long as it
did...whether you liked what it wound up as or not...
PB
: I did get a few pieces of information for future reference from this
: experience - the names of a few writers. producers and a network to avoid
: and some actors to look out for.
: Sandra Ballasch
--
...Nobody forces you to watch SQ or any other show but I'll say that as
a ST fan NBC partially redeemed themselves by sticking with Hill Streetn
Blues as long as they did some years later. As for the rest we'll see...
PB
William December Starr
In article <48vrng$4...@news.csus.edu>,
ghar...@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu (Gharlane of Eddore) said:
> The *ONLY* thing that can be said in support of "SinkQuest" is that it
> was better than "EARTH 2."
Oh yeah? When did the god Neptune appear on "Earth 2"?
Seriously, I think that E2 had a lot more going for it than most people
thought it did, but was killed by (a) inflated expectations (way to go,
NBC), (a-prime) mis-guided expectations, thanks to the producers'
(and/or NBC's) decision to hit the potential audience with their big,
expensive 2001-like space-travel special effects about twenty million
times in the months leading up to the premiere of a series that spent
exactly 1 (one) episode -- the pilot -- in space, (b) frequent
pre-emption (again, kudos to the geniuses at NBC), and (c) a taste for
slowly-developed arc-like storylines that required more viewer
dedication to follow than most people were willing to give it,
especially in light of NBC's frequent pre-emptions.
> "EARTH 2" and "SEAQUEST" are dead and gone; don't bemoan their loss,
> because neither of them was a contribution.
>
> They were nothing but waste, squared, cubed, and loaded with B.S.
Don't misunderstand me -- I'm not hyping E2 as a Misunderstood Classic,
Murdered In Its Youth By a Fickle Audience That Wouldn't Know Genius If
It Bit Them On the Ass and a Braindead Network That Couldn't Schedule
Straight... I'm just saying that I think there was more good stuff, and
potential, there than you're giving it credit for.
-- William December Starr <wds...@crl.com>
Carlos G Diaz III
I knew the end was in sight when it was moved to Wednesday, if you
recall NBC ran a must see wednesday during the World Series and those
sitcoms got way better ratings then SQ. Face it, the show was really
bad! I am only surprised it got renewed for a third season and I am
glad someone wised up and got this abyssmal trash off the air.
THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Carlos'95 (Who is still reeling from a lack of babylon 5 in San Antonio
;^( )
Gharlane of Eddore
RON MURILLO <ron_m...@maillink.berkeley.edu> writes:
>
> I think the producers of SQ 2032 did their best with this season and
> it's unfortunate the series is being cut off like this. They had a lot
> to live down from last year and that reputation probably had as much to
> do with people not tuning in as the competition IMHO. Good luck, cast
> and crew.
>
Look, son, the same guy who wrote the infamous "Neptune" script last
year was STILL WORKING ON THE SHOW THIS YEAR.
They had staff writers they were carrying on the books as
"producers," so they could keep those nice solid paychecks among
themselves; they'd didn't hire any real writers, they never got a
competent technical advisor, and they decided they didn't need a
series "bible" for the third year, since all the scripts were
going to be done in-house, and they all Knew It All.
The *ONLY* thing that can be said in support of "SinkQuest" is that
it was better than "EARTH 2."
As soon as "Amblin'"/Universal chose to buy a pilot script and series
format from an incompetent hack typist like Rockne S. O'Bannon, the
series was crippled; the first year never recovered from the acute
lack of technical competence and genre competence among the writers,
and this was why the ratings dropped steadily in Year One. Year
two went from shoddy Sci-Fi to even more putrid kiddie-fantasy,
and when the ratings dropped even further, they decided to go for
a sort of "gritty" "THUNDER IN PARADISE" format, with no real
explanation. Most of the viewership tuned out permanently with
the first show of Year Three, when they couldn't be bothered to
resolve the Year Two cliff-hanger, and chose to just ignore it
with a Patrick-Duffy-In-The-Shower "reset to zero."
At the end, "SinkQuest" was frittering away ONE POINT EIGHT MILLION
BUCKS per episode. Just as a hint, 1.8 million is enough to make
2.25 episodes of "BABYLON 5," which is still in production. Does
this give you a hint about production competence?
You CANNOT make an expensive series with nothing to offer but visual
FX, and expect people to actively support it. Eye candy won't
do it; you have to have SCRIPTS.... and you have to have better
scripts than the recycled "WAGON TRAIN" crud "EARTH 2" was using,
or the recycled "VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA" crud that
"SINKQUEST" was using.
Without competent writing and competent technical advising, and some
degree of genre competence in the production staff, any attempt at
SF on TV is foredoomed to splashy, albeit ignominious, failure.
Just because you got an Emmy nomination for a "WONDER YEARS" script
doesn't mean you can make an SF show about life on another planet.
Just because you got rich producing a "MOD SQUAD" clone on a shoestring
budget in Canada doesn't mean you can make an SF show about a technical
environment in the near future.
The average TV producer can NOT tell the difference between Fantasy and
SF, and doesn't care; and he doesn't know enough about storytelling to
function in any conceptual milieu farther removed from his personal
reality than the average cop show or soap opera.
Ted McCoy
William December Starr <wds...@crl.com> wrote:
>Seriously, I think that E2 had a lot more going for it than most people
>thought it did, but was killed by (a) inflated expectations (way to go,
>NBC), (a-prime) mis-guided expectations, thanks to the producers'
>(and/or NBC's) decision to hit the potential audience with their big,
>expensive 2001-like space-travel special effects about twenty million
>times in the months leading up to the premiere of a series that spent
>exactly 1 (one) episode -- the pilot -- in space,
Personally, Earth 2's pilot episode exceeded my expectations -- which,
unfortunately, says more about my expectations than it says about the pilot.
At any rate, regardless of expectations, pilot episodes as poor as Earth 2's
tend to scare away viewers (B5, VR5, and Space all being cases in point).
>(b) frequent
>pre-emption (again, kudos to the geniuses at NBC),
Agreed. A bit of a vicious cycle: low ratings for Earth 2 made NBC more
willing to preempt it; more preemptions for Earth 2 hurt its ratings; even
lower ratings for Earth 2 made NBC even more willing to preempt it; etc.)
>and (c) a taste for
>slowly-developed arc-like storylines that required more viewer
>dedication to follow than most people were willing to give it,
>especially in light of NBC's frequent pre-emptions.
Agreed -- but I'd also blame Earth 2's writers for failing to follow through
on those story arcs during most of the second half of Earth 2's season.
Once the characters camped out for the winter, the show lost a great deal of
the momentum it had built earlier during the Terry O'Quinn episodes. As I
recall, the reaction here was extremely positive to the O'Quinn episodes
(with the obvious exception of Gharlane, of course). I know that those
episodes were the ones that made me a fan of the show, at least for a while.
Unfortunately, the later episodes had little of the tension and conflict that
characterized these episodes, the focus shifted to the badly-played
metaphysical planet-is-alive mumble-babble, and by the time the series finale
came around, I personally had more or less lost interest in Earth 2.
(Still, it's dangerous to try to link ratings with quality. The consensus
here and from media critics seemed to be that the Terry O'Quinn episodes
represented a tremendous improvement for Earth 2 -- and yet the ratings still
continued to fall. Similarly, the consensus seems to be that VR5 improved
tremendously after its first few episodes, and yet its ratings also showed
no signs of improvement. Even B5 has shown no definite signs of ratings
growth, despite its improvement from "embarrassing pilot" into "must-see tv.")
Ted
Gharlane of Eddore
>
.......<deletia>
>
> Don't misunderstand me -- I'm not hyping E2 as a Misunderstood Classic,
> Murdered In Its Youth By a Fickle Audience That Wouldn't Know Genius If
> It Bit Them On the Ass and a Braindead Network That Couldn't Schedule
> Straight... I'm just saying that I think there was more good stuff, and
> potential, there than you're giving it credit for.
>
Yeah. I can think of two things about "EARTH 2" that don't make me
nauseous; "Rebecca Gayheart," and Jessica Steen.
Since I recently discovered that Steen is both a Canadian and a Klinton
supporter, there is now only one thing about "EARTH 2" that doesn't
make me nauseous; "Rebecca Gayheart."
Colonel X
>Look, son, the same guy who wrote the infamous "Neptune" script last
>year was STILL WORKING ON THE SHOW THIS YEAR.
>They had staff writers they were carrying on the books as
>"producers," so they could keep those nice solid paychecks among
Gharlane, isn't this problem one that a lot of shows are sharing?
You can't turn on TV without seeing the entire writing staff credited
as some sort of producer, it seems. I first noticed it during the
first season of "Beauty and the Beast" and "seaBore" is by no means
the only show with 7+ "producers" on today.
>.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
On assignment in Athens, Georgia,
Colonel X.
Expect the unexpected.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Colonel X
>William December Starr (wds...@crl.com) wrote:
>
>: Seriously, I think that E2 had a lot more going for it than most people
>: thought it did, but was killed by (a) inflated expectations (way to go,
>: NBC), (a-prime) mis-guided expectations, thanks to the producers'
>: (and/or NBC's) decision to hit the potential audience with their big,
>: expensive 2001-like space-travel special effects about twenty million
>: times in the months leading up to the premiere of a series that spent
>: pre-emption (again, kudos to the geniuses at NBC), and (c) a taste for
>: slowly-developed arc-like storylines that required more viewer
>: dedication to follow than most people were willing to give it,
>: especially in light of NBC's frequent pre-emptions.
>
>certain time slots. Even if E2 would have +12 ratings it would
>have been pre-empted, due to its time slot and NBC.
Remember the nature of US TV, everyone. Shows start in September and
have "season finales" in May. 40 weeks. 22 shows ordered. Therefore
many pre-emptions and repeats. It's not specific to NBC.
Charles J Walther
First you take what may have been a good idea, and we look for writers
who know absolutely nothing about the subject. Then we go out of our way
not to consult with anyone who knows anything about the subject and who
might be able to help us. They we take every Grade ZZZ drive in movie
Science fiction plot from the 1950s and use them for story outlines.
Finally we write dialog that proves that not only do the writers and
producers know nothing about this subject, but also the cast hasn't a
clue about what is going on.
Then come ratings sweeps we wonder why we have the market share of Saturday
morning test pattern.
NBC has done this for SeaQuest and their Lost in Space clone from last
year. They just don't have clue what Science fiction means.
Remember this is the network that killed the original Star Trek because
they moved it to Friday night at 10pm and gave them a budget of $0.25 per
show. I know, cause I was there.
Send Replies to the Following
Charles J. Walther
a024...@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us
Sandra Ballasch
they do) does not mean it is either effective or intelligent. As it
happens it is neither. Putting on new shows and immediatly 1)having them
be delayed or preempeted by sporting events 2)preempting them at random
3)moving them at random 4) changing cast, premise,etc at random - are
absolute guarantees that the shows that get that treatment will not make
it to or past January. Look at the two shows in this subject. Both were
hyped to the skies and then promptly disowned by the network. The only
reason seaQuest made it as far as it did was because a very vocal
audience kept at the network. Not that it did any good - the show was
renewed but with changes that were carefully calculated to finally lose
that audience too. Add a production staff who openly ridiculed their own
staff and show and I'm surprised that it lasted this long. On the other
hand ER and Friends (to look at this season's favorites) are treated with
kid gloves and lots of publicity - did I mention publicity. Some shows
go off the air before anyone has had a chance to know they were on. Too
much weight is given to the first week of the new season - some shows
will need time to find an audience.
Sandy
Gharlane of Eddore
ghar...@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu (Gharlane of Eddore) writes:
> Look, son, the same guy who wrote the infamous "Neptune" script last
> year was STILL WORKING ON THE SHOW THIS YEAR.
> They had staff writers they were carrying on the books as
> "producers," so they could keep those nice solid paychecks among
> themselves...
Colonel X <GOG...@MUSIC.CC.UGA.EDU> writes:
> Gharlane, isn't this problem one that a lot of shows are sharing?
> You can't turn on TV without seeing the entire writing staff credited
> as some sort of producer, it seems. I first noticed it during the
> first season of "Beauty and the Beast" and "seaBore" is by no means
> the only show with 7+ "producers" on today.
There's a fundamental difference, here; George R.R. Martin and Ron Koslow
were both competent writers at the outset, and Martin had won a number
of writing awards for his SF and Fantasy. They *knew* what they were doing!
.....and there's a bit of difference between "BEAUTY AND THE BEAST"'s
couple of staff "producers" and "SINKQUEST"'s *NINE* typists who didn't
know from SF, and didn't care enough about whether the show survived to
take the trouble to learn how to do their job.
Some of the credits from a typical "SINKQUEST" 3rd-year show:
<> Created by Rockne S. O'Bannon
<> Executive Producers Patrick Hasburgh
<> Clifton Campbell
<> Music by Russ Mitchell Landau
<> Co-Executive Producer Carleton Eastlake
<> Supervising Producers Lee Goldberg
<> William Rabkin
<> Co-Producer Philip Carr Neel
<> Co-Producer Harker Wade
<> Produced by Steve Beers
<> Associate Producer Peter Mavromates
<> Executive Story Editor Naren Shankar
<> Production Manager Harker Wade
<> Production Coordinator Leslie S. Stevens
.....It appears that Hasburgh and Campbell may actually be functioning
as "show-runners," but the episode credits also show they're still
writing scripts; we know Eastlake is still writing scripts; so that
leaves us Goldberg and Rabkin to point accusatory fingers at?
Why bother.....
When you've got *one* guy on the series (Shankar) whose credit line
seems to imply he has something to do with writing the bluidie thingies,
and everyone else is some sort of "producer...." and you've got one guy,
Harker Wade, listed as both a "Co-Producer" and a "Production Manager,"
either you're overpaying a guy for doing two demanding jobs, either one
of which should take the full-time attention of a competent man.....
or someone's collecting two paychecks because the management couldn't
figure out how to pay him appropriately without pinning an extra phony
title on him.... then you've got a fundamental problem in your
organizational structure and compensation system.
WHEN WE READ THE CREDITS ON THE SHOW, AND THE CREDITS LIE ABOUT WHAT
PEOPLE ARE DOING TO MAKE THE SHOW, WHAT KIND OF MESSAGE IS THAT SENDING?
When we see gross technical and conceptual errors in a script which has
a credit for "Executive Story Editor" who used to be employed as a
"technical advisor" on one of the Paramount shows....... we are led
inexorably to the presumption that either he's not competent, or he's
not being listened to.
SEAQUEST'S SECOND BIGGEST PROBLEM WAS THE DECISION TO RUN ON STAFF WRITERS.
You can't do this, if the staff writers can't write you any worthwhile
SF scripts; and you certainly can't make an SF show in the absence of
genre-competent writers.
(The biggest problem, of course, was hiring Rockne S. O'Bannon to do the
format and pilot for a big-budget SF series in the first place, but we
won't get into that again. It's history, at this point.)
Paul Browne
Distribution: world
Yadda Yadda Yadda more SeaQuest season one...
Sandra Ballasch (ball...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu) wrote:
: The fact that television networks all follow this pattern (which I agree
: they do) does not mean it is either effective or intelligent. As it
: happens it is neither. Putting on new shows and immediatly 1)having them
: be delayed or preempeted by sporting events 2)preempting them at random
: 3)moving them at random 4) changing cast, premise,etc at random - are
...I'l agree with you on the first three but must again say that cast
changes do not necessarily=failure for example M*A*S*H, Knots Landing,
Falcon Crest etc...
: absolute guarantees that the shows that get that treatment will not make
: it to or past January. Look at the two shows in this subject. Both were
: hyped to the skies and then promptly disowned by the network. The only
: reason seaQuest made it as far as it did was because a very vocal
: audience kept at the network. Not that it did any good - the show was
...Not really, NBC only renewed the show because they felt the
demographics i the audience were in their favor...as the "E2" fans found
out all the vocals in the world won't move an obstinate network...
: renewed but with changes that were carefully calculated to finally lose
...Hardly. The changes were made to increase a small (for television)
viewing audience. Ultimately as happens in life they were not successful
but this is not a "careful calculation" it's a gamble that fails...
: that audience too. Add a production staff who openly ridiculed their own
...Many of the "audience" themselves ridiculed the show which did not
help matters...
: staff and show and I'm surprised that it lasted this long. On the other
: hand ER and Friends (to look at this season's favorites) are treated with
: kid gloves and lots of publicity - did I mention publicity. Some shows
: go off the air before anyone has had a chance to know they were on. Too
: much weight is given to the first week of the new season - some shows
: will need time to find an audience.
...Agreed here
PB
Sandra Ballasch
On 27 Nov 1995, Paul Browne wrote:
>
> Distribution: world
>
> Yadda Yadda Yadda more SeaQuest season one...
>
> Sandra Ballasch (ball...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu) wrote:
> : The fact that television networks all follow this pattern (which I agree
> : they do) does not mean it is either effective or intelligent. As it
> : happens it is neither. Putting on new shows and immediatly 1)having them
> : be delayed or preempeted by sporting events 2)preempting them at random
> : 3)moving them at random 4) changing cast, premise,etc at random - are
>
> ...I'l agree with you on the first three but must again say that cast
> changes do not necessarily=failure for example M*A*S*H, Knots Landing,
> Falcon Crest etc...
I don't recall either of those shows doing the wholesale character
changes that seaQuest did between the first and second and second and
third seasons. Also, I am probably not alone in watching many shows for
the actors who play the roles - change the actor - lose me.
> : absolute guarantees that the shows that get that treatment will not make
> : it to or past January. Look at the two shows in this subject. Both were
> : hyped to the skies and then promptly disowned by the network. The only
> : reason seaQuest made it as far as it did was because a very vocal
> : audience kept at the network. Not that it did any good - the show was
>
> ...Not really, NBC only renewed the show because they felt the
> demographics i the audience were in their favor...as the "E2" fans found
> out all the vocals in the world won't move an obstinate network...
>
> : renewed but with changes that were carefully calculated to finally lose
>
> ...Hardly. The changes were made to increase a small (for television)
> viewing audience. Ultimately as happens in life they were not successful
> but this is not a "careful calculation" it's a gamble that fails...
Well maybe they need to re-assess their demographics because the changes
they made were guaranteed to lose much of the existing audience and
obviously didn't bring in much of a new one. Presumably all the young
males they counted on didn't want to watch the show either. As a woman
I'm getting pretty tired of having every show on televison aimed at the
juvenile male with raging hormones.
> : that audience too. Add a production staff who openly ridiculed their own
>
> ...Many of the "audience" themselves ridiculed the show which did not
> help matters...
But most of our comments were aimed at the writing, theirs were at the show
itself and anyone who admitted to liking it. I always wonder at someone
who feels the need to denigrate those who disagree with them - especially
when it is something as subjective as personal likes and dislikes. What
must it have been like to work for (or with - Michael Ironside slammed
the rest of the cast when he joined the show) people who are willing to
express such public contempt for you and your work? Especially when they
are responsible for what you are doing. Maybe actors are used to it -
but it wouldn't be my choice of work atmospheres.
> : staff and show and I'm surprised that it lasted this long. On the other
> : hand ER and Friends (to look at this season's favorites) are treated with
> : kid gloves and lots of publicity - did I mention publicity. Some shows
> : go off the air before anyone has had a chance to know they were on. Too
> : much weight is given to the first week of the new season - some shows
> : will need time to find an audience.
>
> ...Agreed here
> PB
I suspect that we will simply have to agree to disagree on the other matters.
Sandra Ballasch
fab...@li.net
In defense of Earth 2, I think that this was one of the few
series that showed MUCH promise. I think that the lack of promotion and
the fact that it was preempted like every other week was the reason it
died. Much in the same way that Homefront died.
Fabo
Gharlane of Eddore
Oh, yeah, it was REAL promising. It made more promises than an
alcoholic with a bad hangover on the morning after, and kept them
about as well.
Remember the producers:
"We don't know *ANYTHING* about Sci-Fi, and we're going to make
the kind of Sci-Fi *WE*'d want to watch on TV."
Well, that's just what they did, and since their tastes were puerile,
genre-ignorant, and relatively uneducated, they shot themselves down.
Network pre-emptions had NOTHING to do with it; the show was hyped
and publicized and the pilot movie shown on GOOD nights, several
times, and the reason it got putrid ratings was that it was a
putrid show.
To quote Ambassador G'Kar, "What part of this progression escapes you?"
Ted Ambrose
>Since I recently discovered that Steen is BOTH a Canadian and a >Klinton
supporter, there is now only one thing about "EARTH 2" that >doesn't make me
nauseous; "Rebecca Gayheart."
I can see why you may not like her because she supports Clinton (whatever
your politics may be), but what does the fact that she is a Canadian have to
do with it?
Just curious,
Ted!
GinaT1000
>Yeah. I can think of two things about "EARTH 2" that don't make me
nauseous; "Rebecca Gayheart," and Jessica Steen.
>>Since I recently discovered that Steen is both a Canadian and a Klinton
supporter, there is now only one thing about "EARTH 2" that doesn't
>>make me nauseous; "Rebecca Gayheart."
Unfortunately, it seems that if you were to throw out most of the actors
in Hollywood who are supporters of Clinton, there wouldn't be any of them
left, and with my luck, they'd all be sitcom stars.
Gina
Miller / Sharon June (ISE)
In my last message which I sent to everyone I asked about whether Earth 2
had been cancelled. I now know that it has been. Boo Hoo.
Now I'd like to know if SeaQuest has officially been cancelled because
I've been dying for it to come back. Also I really like Michael Ironside
and he was going to replace The Captain "Roy".
Please let me know what the hell is going on with it. Ta.
Kerry Ferrand
:
: In my last message which I sent to everyone I asked about whether Earth 2
SeaQuest DSV , since renamed SeaQuest 2032 was cancelled too..hooray!:)
Gharlane of Eddore
"Miller / Sharon June (ISE)" <u92...@student.canberra.edu.au> writes:
>
> In my last message which I sent to everyone I asked about whether Earth 2
> had been cancelled. I now know that it has been. Boo Hoo.
Dead and gone, out of production, actors gone to new jobs, last couple
of episodes aired in spring of '95. Good riddance....
> Now I'd like to know if SeaQuest has officially been cancelled because
> I've been dying for it to come back. Also I really like Michael Ironside
> and he was going to replace The Captain "Roy".
>
> Please let me know what the hell is going on with it. Ta.
Dead and gone, out of production, sets and costumes auctioned off to
collectors, production crew spread to new jobs.
Only 13 episodes were shot for the Fall '95 season, and it looks like
they might not even show all of those.....
Katrina McDonnell
>
>In my last message which I sent to everyone I asked about whether Earth 2
>had been cancelled. I now know that it has been. Boo Hoo.
>
>I've been dying for it to come back. Also I really like Michael Ironside
>and he was going to replace The Captain "Roy".
>
>Please let me know what the hell is going on with it. Ta.
Yes Seaquest has been oficially cancelled. Not quite sure how many episodes in
the 3rd season but I have a feeling it was either 9 or 13.
Katrina
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Katrina McDonnell
School of Earth Sciences
Macquarie University
Sydney, NSW, Australia
Email : kat...@penman.es.mq.edu.au
Home Page : http://atmos.es.mq.edu.au/~katrina/
Earth2: Eden Advance
To see a World in a Grain of Sand All of this was for
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower, nothing, unless we go to
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand the stars.
And Eternity in an hour. - Sinclair, Babylon 5
- William Blake
Todd W Powell
Kerry Ferrand <kfer...@southern.co.nz> wrote:
>Miller / Sharon June (ISE) (u92...@student.canberra.edu.au) wrote:
>:
>: In my last message which I sent to everyone I asked about whether Earth 2
>: had been cancelled. I now know that it has been. Boo Hoo.
>:
>: Now I'd like to know if SeaQuest has officially been cancelled because
>: I've been dying for it to come back. Also I really like Michael Ironside
>: and he was going to replace The Captain "Roy".
>:
>: Please let me know what the hell is going on with it. Ta.
>
If they had gotten rid of that damned dolphin, the mutants/genetically
engineered crewmembers <the guy with the camoflage skin and the guy with
*HELLO* GILLS???>, and possibly the young punk Westley Crusher wannabe, I might
have watched the show. I think it had possibilities, but I felt like the
writers were insulting my intelligence, whenever I watched it, by giving me
cheezy little gimics rather than good stories.
Todd
--
"Sittin' here wishin' on a cement floor
Just wishin' that I had just somethin' you wore.
Bloody your hands on a cactus tree
Wipe it on your dress and send it to me." - The Pixies