Save Earth2!
KissTheSky
save Earth2 -- so it will be renewed next season. Send your Email to NBC
on that day throught America Online or try this Email address:
n...@aol.com (not sure if it works). Hopefully volume Email on the same
day will convince them to renew the show!
E2 fans unite!!!!
PS If you don't like the show (and if you don't why are you reading
this?) then please do us the courtesy of not responding here. Thanks.
Gharlane of Eddore
Actually, I *was* going to ignore this, until you got smarmy about it.
I'm hereby designating next April 7th as the Official, National,
"PREVENT AIR POLLUTION BY HAVING EARTH 2 CANCELLED CELEBRATION DAY."
I call upon all loyal fans of SF, Good TV, Writing, and Storytelling,
not to mention those of us who know basic engineering and human physiology,
to DEMONSTRATE YOUR DISGUST by bestowing on NBC as *many* copies of
the "WILD WILD WEST" FAQ as you can send, with the message header
"KILL EARTH 2!" (Or, if you're not a fan of WWW, send 'em copies
of the "HIGHLANDER" FAQ, or even the "BATTLESTAR GALACTICA" FAQ.....)
Help show NBC what pollution *really* looks like, TELL them how you
feel about them spending that much money and air time on "WAGON TRAIN"
with FX, when they could have been carrying an *SF* show!
Surely a few hundred of us, with carefully programmed PF keys to do
file sends, can make a difference.......
Let's make sure that NBC knows the world isn't filled with E-2 fans!
Otherwise they might actually keep the turkey in production!!!!
Frank McNeil
: In <3l77ks$k...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> kisst...@aol.com (KissTheSky) writes:
: >
: > Friday, April 7th has been established as National Email day to NBC to
: > save Earth2 -- so it will be renewed next season. Send your Email to
: > NBC on that day throught America Online or try this Email address:
: > n...@aol.com (not sure if it works). Hopefully volume Email on the same
: > day will convince them to renew the show!
: >
: > E2 fans unite!!!!
: >
: > PS If you don't like the show (and if you don't why are you reading
: > this?) then please do us the courtesy of not responding here. Thanks.
: Actually, I *was* going to ignore this, until you got smarmy about it.
Well I wish you wouldn't have been provoked. I note that you don't flame
"Earth 2" in alt.tv.earth2 and I am grateful.
IMO, a number of people actually "HATE" "Earth 2" and will go out of
their way to deny those that love "Earth 2" the show. IMO, this
bigotry is sick.
Frank,
P.S. Note that even the "Cardiff Movie Database" goes out of its way
to flame Earth 2 at http://www.msstate.edu/M/review_2_html.pl?3066/AAB0
: I'm hereby designating next April 7th as the Official, National,
John P. LaRocque
Gharlane of Eddore <ghar...@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu> wrote:
>I'm hereby designating next April 7th as the Official, National,
>"PREVENT AIR POLLUTION BY HAVING EARTH 2 CANCELLED CELEBRATION DAY."
Yeah!
>I call upon all loyal fans of SF, Good TV, Writing, and Storytelling,
>not to mention those of us who know basic engineering and human physiology,
>to DEMONSTRATE YOUR DISGUST by bestowing on NBC as *many* copies of
>the "WILD WILD WEST" FAQ as you can send, with the message header
>"KILL EARTH 2!" (Or, if you're not a fan of WWW, send 'em copies
>of the "HIGHLANDER" FAQ, or even the "BATTLESTAR GALACTICA" FAQ.....)
Complained. Even used the same Subject line. AND sent the BG
FAQ. [now that would be interesting... what if they pick up BG
next season?]
> Let's make sure that NBC knows the world isn't filled with E-2 fans!
>Otherwise they might actually keep the turkey in production!!!!
Help end the Amblin evil! Heck, this stuff is so awful, Gharlane has
stopped bitching about how bad Galactica was.
--
|----\___ John P. LaRocque (lar...@gaul.csd.uwo.ca)
********]|-----|___\__________
********]|_______>___________/ "There are those who believe
|_____ / that life here began out there..."
Ted McCoy
I do like the show, and hope that it gets renewed (although I'm not hopeful,
based on the ratings).
BUT -- I think a good part of saving the show might be improving the writing.
The character interaction has generally been superb, and the Terry O'Quinn
arc was basically spectacular, but I really think they've dropped the ball
with this Terrian stuff (and the whole bit with the planet being a living
organism). I mean, did anybody watch this stuff with the spiders this week?
Uh, specific complaints:
-That dialogue about attraction with the spiders (about opposites attracting)
was possibly the worst dialogue I've heard lately this side of SeaQuest.
Painful to listen to.
-Why did the characters keep referring to the transport system as a "time
rift," when in fact there didn't even seem to be a suggestion of time
travel? Even calling it a space/time rift got pretty silly. Granted, they
were apparently trying to remind us of Stargate. That's still no excuse.
-Also the mention of the planet's strong "metaphysical plane" was kind of
goofy.
-On a more general level, I'm not too thrilled with this whole idea of the
planet being a living organism. But I could accept the idea, if it were
handled with some sort of intelligence and, in particular, with any sort
of subtlety. For instance, presenting various mysteries on the planet which
would lead the alert viewer to gradually realize that the planet is alive.
Actually, Terry O'Quinn's dialogue about the link between the Terrians and
the planet was fine. But when the characters come up with these goofy-
sounding theories about how the planet is alive, and state these theories
without motivation (except to explain things to the audience) and without
really questioning how stupid they sound, they lose credibility. That's
dangerous for a show like Earth 2 whose strength is the characters.
-With this episode specifically -- having the spiders exactly like earth
spiders was also disappointing. Funny how the only non-human lifeforms on
the planet are the Grendlers, the Terrians, and that thing that puts people
in deathlike comas. IMHO, the whole bit about the planet having a
transportation system would have been much more acceptable if it had used
some sort of generic lifeform (like moss perhaps) whose presence wasn't as
obvious as the spiders, and whose role in the transportation system was
never explained as sillily as the spiders were. Maybe something that would
have left more ambiguity about what exactly was happening.
-The bit about the spider bites having such convenient effects (and not just
on grendlers but even on humans) was just too ridiculous. Unforgiveable.
Very much in SeaQuest territory, and very much kiddie fantasy of the worst
kind, which has generally been something Earth 2 has generally done a good
job of avoiding in recent episodes (especially the Terry O'Quinn episodes).
-If the transportation systems are not mentioned next episode, I'll be sorely
disappointed. It's pretty clear that there is a way to transport directly
to New Pacifica, or at least a good likelihood, and if the characters just
decide "ooh, those spiders are scary, let's leave them alone," I'll be very
disappointed.
-Also, the effect of those spider bites ought to figure into a future episode.
Not sure if I'd care to see the direction the writers would take that, but
hey, if you have spiders that can have that sort of effect on people, it's
not terribly realistic to think that nobody would think to use them....
On the bright side, Earth 2 is still presenting aliens who act amazingly alien.
I like that. Even B5 hasn't quite managed to pull that off yet.
This was a very frustrating episode. A lot of the character moments were done
extremely well, the episode was very well directed, and the episode did keep
me guessing about a lot of the plot points for a while (although I guess that's
partly because the eventual explanation was so much more ridiculous than
anything I was expecting). Anyway, even the stupidity about the spider bites
was sort of worthwhile for that great "he had a relapse" scene.
I still see a lot of potential in Earth 2 -- and a lot that is being done
right -- but it's really frustrating to see such gigantic stumbles, especially
when they're repeated week after week.
Anybody no any way to forward some of these complaints to NBC? Like an email
address? I mean, I don't want to insult anybody, but I think Earth 2 deserves
to be saved a lot more than SeaQuest does. There's a lot more of Earth 2
to be saved than is left of SeaQuest.
Ted
Mikey
(KissTheSky) wrote:
> Friday, April 7th has been established as National Email day to NBC to
> save Earth2 -- so it will be renewed next season. Send your Email to NBC
> on that day throught America Online or try this Email address:
> n...@aol.com (not sure if it works). Hopefully volume Email on the same
> day will convince them to renew the show!
>
Aren't they already signed up for a second season?
--
///mjh///
Net Wanderer
Seeking Truth
Bored Stiff
Gharlane of Eddore
lar...@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (John P. LaRocque) writes:
>
.....<deletia>
>
GOE> Let's make sure that NBC knows the world isn't filled with E-2 fans!
GOE> Otherwise they might actually keep the turkey in production!!!!
>
> Help end the Amblin evil! Heck, this stuff is so awful, Gharlane has
> stopped bitching about how bad Galactica was.
>--
Son, I'd sooner watch five episodes of "GALACTICA: 1980," back-to-back,
than have to sit through ONE more episode of "E-2."
There's simply no comparison; the "Amblin'" products have supplanted
even "SPACE: 1999" as the worst TV SkiFfy of all time.
Helen Angela Lee
television show (read: FICTION) that they would deny it to the rest of
us. It's a matter of taste, okay? If you don't like it, fine. If you are
determined to see Earth 2 die because you personally can't stand it,
you're selfish and confused.
Please realize that you don't and will never dictate to others what we
like. You don't have that power, and you should not.
And have a sense of humor about all this. Nothing's that serious. I'd say
get a life, but Shatner did that already.
-Helen
John Switzer
>It rather frightens me that there are people out there so opposed to a
>television show (read: FICTION) that they would deny it to the rest of
>us. It's a matter of taste, okay? If you don't like it, fine. If you are
>determined to see Earth 2 die because you personally can't stand it,
>you're selfish and confused.
Not at all; rather you're overreacting and being paranoid. I don't watch
Earth 2 and really don't care if it stays around or not. However, there
are those who see shows like Earth 2 or Platypus Man or <<fill in the
blank with your favorite hated series>> and realize that those shows are
taking up finite resources, in this case a slot on network TV. Perhaps
if this show over here weren't on, that show over there would have a chance.
I don't watch network TV anymore, so I really don't care what dreck they
show. Others, however, do and they have a right to voice their opinion.
It's called freedom of speech, not "being selfish and confused."
>Please realize that you don't and will never dictate to others what we
>like. You don't have that power, and you should not.
Actually, I, along with the rest of the viewing public, do - it's called
our freedom of choice as to which TV shows we do and do not want to
watch. If we out in TV-land don't watch a show, it's going to die and
in that sense we are clearly dictating to others what they can and cannot
watch. It's called the free market - get used to it.
>And have a sense of humor about all this. Nothing's that serious. I'd say
>get a life, but Shatner did that already.
Someone like you telling everyone else to get a sense of humor is pretty
humor, but I doubt if you can see the joke. Perhaps you should take
Shatner's advice and not get so hemped up over TV? Try reading a book.
--
John Switzer | Violence Solves Nothing? Sure - let's see if
| you believe that the next time you get mugged,
Internet: j...@netcom.com | robbed, raped, assaulted, attacked, carjacked,
CompuServe: 74076,1250 | or otherwise have your freedoms infringed.
Mark Thompson
: > It rather frightens me that there are people out there so opposed to a
: > us. It's a matter of taste, okay? If you don't like it, fine. If you are
: > you're selfish and confused.
[...]
: ...And the problem with schlock SkiFfy shows like "E-2" is that they
: generate an environment that effectively precludes availability of the
: the stuff *I* want to see. If we let NBC get away with doing retreads
: of "LOST IN SPACE" and "WAGON TRAIN," with stupid, *STUPID* scripts and
: plots, that is *all* we are going to get to see on the tube.
:
: I don't have the *time* to get involved with TV production and spend a
: couple of decades seeing to it that a product gets made to suit me; but
: what I *can* do is organize boycotts, foment, *communicate*, try to
: point out shortcomings, and make people aware of the fact that they're
: being robbed of lifespan by TV shows made by inept toads with delusions
: of competence.
But this method will completely backfire. Television producers won't
look at this and think, "Wow, people hate this type of Sci Fi"; they'll
think "People hate Sci Fi". The only way different forms of SF will get
on the air is if SF becomes an accepted part of TV, the same way that
doctor, hospital, and newsmagazine shows are. Screaming about certain
shows just poisons the atmosphere for all SF.
This is something you really only see with SF. People who hate, say,
Chicago Hope, rarely spend pages yelling about how stupid the show is,
and how it really should be made. They simply don't watch it.
If you don't like a show, just don't watch it. If enough other people
also don't like it, it'll soon be off the air. If not, then maybe the
type of SF you want to see isn't the same type that others want to see.
Look at it another way: look at how many sitcoms are on TV. Now look at
how many _quality_ sitcoms are on TV. Look at that ratio. There is always
going to be a similar ratio between quality TV shows and bad ones, in any
genre.
Ted McCoy
> Helen Angela Lee <ha...@columbia.edu> writes:
>> It rather frightens me that there are people out there so opposed to a
>> television show (read: FICTION) that they would deny it to the rest of
>> us. It's a matter of taste, okay? If you don't like it, fine. If you are
>> determined to see Earth 2 die because you personally can't stand it,
>> you're selfish and confused.
>> like. You don't have that power, and you should not.
>> get a life, but Shatner did that already.
>
>...And the problem with schlock SkiFfy shows like "E-2" is that they
>generate an environment that effectively precludes availability of the
>the stuff *I* want to see. If we let NBC get away with doing retreads
>of "LOST IN SPACE" and "WAGON TRAIN," with stupid, *STUPID* scripts and
>plots, that is *all* we are going to get to see on the tube.
And if we let Earth 2 die, then the networks are suddenly going to start
producing the sort of sf you'd like to see? It would be nice. But that's
not terribly realistic, is it?
Think of it this way: if Earth 2 were to become a hit, we could probably
expect other networks to want to create similar hits -- and they might be
willing to take a chance with a Chris Carter or a jms or a Gene Roddenberry
to get these hits. (That certainly seems to be what finally helped jms
get B5 on the air; by all indications, PTEN was motivated more by visions
of Paramount's profits than by jms's vision.) Granted, a lot of the attempts
to duplicate Earth 2's hypothetical success would suck, just like a lot of
the Trek ripoffs have sucked (Space Rangers and SeaQuest for instance).
(Actually, I have trouble imagining Roddenberry coming up with a great show
at this point, and not just because he's dead.) But the point is that I
really think we're more likely to see a good sf show if there *is*
popular sciffy schlock on the air than if there isn't.
(If you're arguing that the failure of Earth 2 would kill not only Earth 2
but also other possible projects that might put real sf on the air, I agree
with you. But that would be reason to kill Earth 2 before it's on the air,
not after.)
> I don't have the *time* to get involved with TV production and spend a
>couple of decades seeing to it that a product gets made to suit me;
Especially with the possibility that your show might bomb after six episodes
and never be heard of again -- regardless of how good or bad it might be.
>but
>what I *can* do is organize boycotts, foment, *communicate*, try to
>point out shortcomings, and make people aware of the fact that they're
>being robbed of lifespan by TV shows made by inept toads with delusions
>of competence.
>
> Since I believe in freedom of choice, freedom to buy or not to buy,
>I will continue to take the attitude that it is my inalienable right to
>laugh, point, yell "SCHLOCK!" and generally be verbally abusive about
>*any* product which reflects low competence levels, a shoddy,
>unprofessional attitude, and subnormal intelligence and education
>level among both the production crew *and* the fans.
I really think SeaQuest has gone out of its way to merit the sort of
behavior you describe. But Earth 2 simply isn't in the same category.
Of course, you'll get more reaction to flaming Earth 2, which is obviously
a consideration. ;-)
> Let "EARTH 2" and "SEAQUEST" die the Real Death. They won't be missed.
SeaQuest will be missed by those who resent the great opportunity that was
so utterly wasted. Well, the original potential will be missed.
Earth 2 will be missed by many -- certainly by those who can appreciate and
understand the difference between television episodes and classroom lectures.
The Terry O'Quinn arc truly had its moments. Of course, a few more spider
episodes and I won't miss the show so much. I must admit, after the last
half dozen episodes, I'm a lot less enthusiastic about this show. At this
point, I'm almost dreading what they're going to come up with next episode.
Ted
Gharlane of Eddore
Helen Angela Lee <ha...@columbia.edu> writes:
> It rather frightens me that there are people out there so opposed to a
> television show (read: FICTION) that they would deny it to the rest of
> us. It's a matter of taste, okay? If you don't like it, fine. If you are
> determined to see Earth 2 die because you personally can't stand it,
> you're selfish and confused.
> Please realize that you don't and will never dictate to others what we
> like. You don't have that power, and you should not.
> And have a sense of humor about all this. Nothing's that serious. I'd say
> get a life, but Shatner did that already.
> -Helen
While I agree vociferously with the intent and spirit of Helen's entry,
here, I can't support the attitude. Although I'm registered "Libertarian,"
and firmly support people's right to go straight to Hell in their own way,
this freedom must include courtesy to those nearby.
...And the problem with schlock SkiFfy shows like "E-2" is that they
generate an environment that effectively precludes availability of the
the stuff *I* want to see. If we let NBC get away with doing retreads
of "LOST IN SPACE" and "WAGON TRAIN," with stupid, *STUPID* scripts and
plots, that is *all* we are going to get to see on the tube.
I don't have the *time* to get involved with TV production and spend a
couple of decades seeing to it that a product gets made to suit me; but
what I *can* do is organize boycotts, foment, *communicate*, try to
point out shortcomings, and make people aware of the fact that they're
being robbed of lifespan by TV shows made by inept toads with delusions
of competence.
I love TV. I love *WATCHING* TV. And I'm VERY offended by the
trash that's available to watch, particularly considering the pay
scales involved.
Since I believe in freedom of choice, freedom to buy or not to buy,
I will continue to take the attitude that it is my inalienable right to
laugh, point, yell "SCHLOCK!" and generally be verbally abusive about
*any* product which reflects low competence levels, a shoddy,
unprofessional attitude, and subnormal intelligence and education
level among both the production crew *and* the fans.
Freedom of speech. You get to say you like it (although there's no
way you'll be able to *justify* that liking!) and you get to support it.
*I* get to say I don't like it, explain why, AND I get to call stations
and complain about it.
Even Klinton hasn't had the cojones to try to shut off the First
Amendment yet.
Susan M. Kennedy
>
> In article <3l77ks$k...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
> KissTheSky <kisst...@aol.com> wrote:
> >Friday, April 7th has been established as National Email day to NBC to
> >save Earth2 -- so it will be renewed next season. Send your Email to NBC
> >on that day throught America Online or try this Email address:
> >n...@aol.com (not sure if it works). Hopefully volume Email on the same
> >day will convince them to renew the show!
> >
> >E2 fans unite!!!!
> >
> >PS If you don't like the show (and if you don't why are you reading
> >this?) then please do us the courtesy of not responding here. Thanks.
>
> I do like the show, and hope that it gets renewed (although I'm not hopeful,
> based on the ratings).
>
> BUT -- I think a good part of saving the show might be improving the writing.
> The character interaction has generally been superb, and the Terry O'Quinn
> arc was basically spectacular, but I really think they've dropped the ball
> with this Terrian stuff (and the whole bit with the planet being a living
> organism). I mean, did anybody watch this stuff with the spiders this week
I agree with this assesement, I really like the show, but it really
suffers from incredable lapses in writing. I seems like there are two
sets of writers, one set are geniuses and the other are idiots. I hope
this show survives and that will only happen if the good wins out
over the inane, but since this doesn't happen all that often in TV
these days, so I have my doubts.
Susan
John P. LaRocque
Helen Angela Lee <ha...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>It rather frightens me that there are people out there so opposed to a
>television show (read: FICTION) that they would deny it to the rest of
>us. It's a matter of taste, okay? If you don't like it, fine. If you are
>determined to see Earth 2 die because you personally can't stand it,
>you're selfish and confused.
I suppose you are right. Maybe we do need more bad 'SF' TV. I apologize.
It's amazing, really. Shows like Earth 2 and SeaQuest are eating up so
much money, it's a wonder why they didn't do a better job. Take
Babylon 5. 1/3 the budget of a Star Trek episode, these guys deliver
the goods and actually use their money wisely.
>Please realize that you don't and will never dictate to others what we
>like. You don't have that power, and you should not.
But NBC does! So write to n...@aol.com. Sink seaQuest! Bury Earth 2!
Annihilate Amblin!
>And have a sense of humor about all this. Nothing's that serious. I'd say
>get a life, but Shatner did that already.
Hey Shatner's a cool dude, not like all those trekkies who are still
offended over in the Star Trek newsgroups.
>-Helen
Ted McCoy
John P. LaRocque <lar...@gaul.csd.uwo.ca> wrote:
>In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.950329...@ciao.cc.columbia.edu>,
>Helen Angela Lee <ha...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>
>>It rather frightens me that there are people out there so opposed to a
>>television show (read: FICTION) that they would deny it to the rest of
>>us. It's a matter of taste, okay? If you don't like it, fine. If you are
>>determined to see Earth 2 die because you personally can't stand it,
>>you're selfish and confused.
>
>I suppose you are right. Maybe we do need more bad 'SF' TV. I apologize.
>
>It's amazing, really. Shows like Earth 2 and SeaQuest are eating up so
>much money, it's a wonder why they didn't do a better job. Take
>Babylon 5. 1/3 the budget of a Star Trek episode, these guys deliver
>the goods and actually use their money wisely.
A *third* the budget of a Trek episode? Wow, how do you figure that? Maybe
you're figuring in the cost of Trek pilot episodes somehow?
I remember seeing somewhere that B5 was at $.7 million per episode and Trek
at $1.4 million per episode, which isn't 1/3.
Ted
Brian Eirik Coe
Oh, that makes sence. You don't like the two most recent sci-fi shows,
so you're willing to eliminate the production house that spawned such
shows as "ER" and animated shows like "Animaniacs". Ya, that makes a lot
of sence.
My feelings on the matter are that Earth 2 is a show with a lot of
potential tha is quickly writing itself into a rut. If they can get away
from the metaphysics of this planet, the show might improve
dramatically. But calling it schlock seems a bit severe. There are
differences of opinion out there. What some hard-core sci-fi fans seem
to want is a science fiction show that makes no mistakes, never uses
technology inconsistantly, and everything they do is perfectly in line
with modern science theory. Nice idea, but it is not likely to happen.
the simple fact is that NO television show, in ANY genre, no matter HOW
realistic they try and make it, EVER gets it all right.
How many courtroom dramas do you see that depict long lengthy trials
without surprise witnesses? How many cop shows show real, hard, police
procedure? How many medical shows depict ture-to-life medical treatment
all the time? (ER is close, but they play fast and loose sometimes).
The reason here is simple, reality is dull. Reality is very hard to
emulate.
I like a lot of what most people consider to be science fiction. I like
everything from hard to soft. But I watch/read it to be entertained.
Most people do. I like to learn something occationally, but that's not
why I'm on my couch watching Earth 2 on Sunday night. It a few minutes
of escape. Since everyones tastes do differ, it would be nice to allow
those of use who don't mind some inacuarcy to enjoy one hour a night.
Besides, everything has a tradeoff. People shout about how TNG is a
horrible show because it in inaccurate internally and scientifically. It
also showed networks that science fiction was a viable genre on t.v. for
the first time in years, and probely in at least partially responsible
for the creation of shows like "Earth 2", "Babylon 5", "SeaQuest",
"Viper", and other s/f tv to come along recently.
--
Brian Eirik Coe * "God himself couldn't sink this ship!"
Optometrist-in-Training * --White Star Line employee at launch of Titanic
"Are you pondering what I'm pondering?" -The Brain, Animaniacs
"It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent." -Q, ST:TNG
John P. LaRocque
Brian Eirik Coe <bc...@trumpet.aix.calpoly.edu> wrote:
>>But NBC does! So write to n...@aol.com. Sink seaQuest! Bury Earth 2!
>>Annihilate Amblin!
>Oh, that makes sence. You don't like the two most recent sci-fi shows,
>so you're willing to eliminate the production house that spawned such
>shows as "ER" and animated shows like "Animaniacs". Ya, that makes a lot
>of sence.
Very well, I'm guilty of hyperbole too. At least I recognize where all
this evil is coming from.
>all the time? (ER is close, but they play fast and loose sometimes).
>The reason here is simple, reality is dull. Reality is very hard to
>emulate.
Speaking of ER, Quentin Tarrantino will be directing one - and says it
is cool to direct something which will appear on TV two weeks later
after it is finished!
>Besides, everything has a tradeoff. People shout about how TNG is a
>horrible show because it in inaccurate internally and scientifically.
Or maybe it was just plain boring most of the time, and on not a few
occasions completely unwatchable (as I am finding a lot of "new" Trek
these days).
>Brian Eirik Coe * "God himself couldn't sink this ship!"
Jeffrey Kaplan
thusly:
>the stuff *I* want to see. If we let NBC get away with doing retreads
>of "LOST IN SPACE" and "WAGON TRAIN," with stupid, *STUPID* scripts and
>plots, that is *all* we are going to get to see on the tube.
Just a reminder: The original Star Trek was billed as " 'Wagon Train'
to the stars" in order to get NBC to show it. (Hmm... maybe that's
what started it?)
> Let "EARTH 2" and "SEAQUEST" die the Real Death. They won't be missed.
I agree about SeaQuest, but Earth2 does have promise. I say let it
live at least one more season. There really isn't much SF on TV. Can
we really afford to kill of one of the few shows that shows +some+ of
the qualities that you (and the rest of us) are looking for?
What are the first-run SF shows on the tube now? In no particular
order:
ST:Voyager
Earth2
Babylon 5
Sliders
X-Files
Space Precinct
ST:DS9
SeaQuest DSV
Lois & Clark
The two ST shows will continue for another couple of years whether we
like them or not simply because they are TREK.
Babylon 5 is shaky because people insist on slamming it simply because
it +isn't+ Trek.
Earth2 I originally had a hard time getting into, but one night I
watched it again because I had nothing else to do, and now I like it.
It has improved since it launched.
The X-Files is a "cult hit" that, personally, I find boring. I've
watched it a few times, and I still find it boring.
Lois & Clark is the classic "Superman" updated for the '90's.
Sliders is brand new, and I like it initially. I hope it stays good,
and improve from here.
Space Precinct, like the X-Files, is also a "cult hit." But this one
I like. Why? It's obviously not the best show of the bunch. But it
also doesn't really try to be. It is what you see with no
pretensions. It also has a "campy" sence of humor.
SeaQuest is just plain horible, that even Speilberg can't rescue it.
Put this all together, and what do you have? A cross section of TV
quality in one small (on TV, anyway) genre. Until there are more SF
shows in regular production, we can't really afford to lose a show
like E2, when it does show promise.
ttul8r,
Jeffrey Kaplan | Internet: gor...@tiac.net | finger for PGP key |
J...@sdsu.edu
>
> ....And the problem with schlock SkiFfy shows like "E-2" is that they
> of "LOST IN SPACE" and "WAGON TRAIN," with stupid, *STUPID* scripts and
> plots, that is *all* we are going to get to see on the tube.
>
I figure the more the merrier. How many cop shows did we have to go
through before they delivered "Homicide"? How many hospital shows
before "ER"? (I've never seen ER, but people seem to like it.)
The friendlier the atmosphere for science fiction or whatever genre
you like, the more chances there will be for getting quality shows.
I happen to think Earth2 is a lot of fun, but then I've liked worse
shows. So what?
Julie
John P. LaRocque
Ted McCoy <mc...@math.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>>It's amazing, really. Shows like Earth 2 and SeaQuest are eating up so
>>much money, it's a wonder why they didn't do a better job. Take
>>Babylon 5. 1/3 the budget of a Star Trek episode, these guys deliver
>>the goods and actually use their money wisely.
>A *third* the budget of a Trek episode? Wow, how do you figure that? Maybe
>you're figuring in the cost of Trek pilot episodes somehow?
>I remember seeing somewhere that B5 was at $.7 million per episode and Trek
>at $1.4 million per episode, which isn't 1/3.
That doesn't invalidate my point. I find, that even mediocre episodes
of B5 (which are relatively rare) are far more entertaining than their more
expensive counterparts at Paramount. Does anybody have a figure for
seaQuest episodes. I think I would faint if I knew how much money was
being poured in that monstrosity.
>Ted
Gharlane of Eddore
> of B5 (which are relatively rare) are far more entertaining than their more
> expensive counterparts at Paramount. Does anybody have a figure for
> seaQuest episodes. I think I would faint if I knew how much money was
> being poured in that monstrosity.
The high production expense was one of the reasons the show barely made
second-year renewal; the ratings were too putrid to support it at that
cost level. This is why the show got moved to a cheaper production
locale, minus a chunk of the cast.......
Frank McNeil
>In article <3lfvua$j...@falcon.ccs.uwo.ca>,
>John P. LaRocque <lar...@gaul.csd.uwo.ca> wrote:
>>
>>But NBC does! So write to n...@aol.com. Sink seaQuest! Bury Earth 2!
>>Annihilate Amblin!
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Oh, that makes sence. You don't like the two most recent sci-fi shows,
>so you're willing to eliminate the production house that spawned such
>shows as "ER" and animated shows like "Animaniacs". Ya, that makes a lot
>of sence.
Thanks for mentioning "ER"; probably the best quality drama show on
commercial TV [..well I think so anyway].
>My feelings on the matter are that Earth 2 is a show with a lot of
>potential tha is quickly writing itself into a rut. If they can get away
>from the metaphysics of this planet, the show might improve
>dramatically. But calling it schlock seems a bit severe. There are
>differences of opinion out there.
I agree there are differences of opinion and calling it schlock might be
severe. What is schlock?
What I really find disappointing is, it is obvious that people of Usenet
TV groups that commented on "Brave New Pacifica" and spiders aren't familiar
with Carl Jung's "anima/animus" that was defined in "Psychological Types"
[back in the definitions]. I had though such notions were common knowledge.
IMHO there is more to "Earth 2" than many people have commented on in
Usenet.
> What some hard-core sci-fi fans seem
>to want is a science fiction show that makes no mistakes, never uses
>technology inconsistantly, and everything they do is perfectly in line
>with modern science theory. Nice idea, but it is not likely to happen.
>the simple fact is that NO television show, in ANY genre, no matter HOW
>realistic they try and make it, EVER gets it all right.
>How many courtroom dramas do you see that depict long lengthy trials
>without surprise witnesses? How many cop shows show real, hard, police
>procedure? How many medical shows depict ture-to-life medical treatment
>all the time? (ER is close, but they play fast and loose sometimes).
>The reason here is simple, reality is dull. Reality is very hard to
>emulate.
Well said!!!
"Reality is very hard to emulate."
>I like a lot of what most people consider to be science fiction. I like
>everything from hard to soft. But I watch/read it to be entertained.
>Most people do. I like to learn something occationally, but that's not
>why I'm on my couch watching Earth 2 on Sunday night. It a few minutes
>of escape. Since everyones tastes do differ, it would be nice to allow
>those of use who don't mind some inacuarcy to enjoy one hour a night.
>Besides, everything has a tradeoff. People shout about how TNG is a
>horrible show because it in inaccurate internally and scientifically.
Wow, I'm glad I wasn't part of Usenet when those discussions were going
on.
> It
>also showed networks that science fiction was a viable genre on t.v. for
>the first time in years, and probely in at least partially responsible
>for the creation of shows like "Earth 2", "Babylon 5", "SeaQuest",
>"Viper", and other s/f tv to come along recently.
>--
>Brian Eirik Coe * "God himself couldn't sink this ship!"
Frank McNeil
>In <Pine.SUN.3.91.950329...@ciao.cc.columbia.edu>
> Helen Angela Lee <ha...@columbia.edu> writes:
>> It rather frightens me that there are people out there so opposed to a
>> television show (read: FICTION) that they would deny it to the rest of
>> us. It's a matter of taste, okay? If you don't like it, fine. If you are
>> determined to see Earth 2 die because you personally can't stand it,
>> you're selfish and confused.
>> Please realize that you don't and will never dictate to others what we
>> like. You don't have that power, and you should not.
>> And have a sense of humor about all this. Nothing's that serious. I'd say
>> get a life, but Shatner did that already.
>> -Helen
>While I agree vociferously with the intent and spirit of Helen's entry,
>here, I can't support the attitude. Although I'm registered "Libertarian,"
>and firmly support people's right to go straight to Hell in their own way,
>this freedom must include courtesy to those nearby.
I believe Helen said you were you might be
"selfish and confused."
Some people like "Earth 2" and "Seaquest". How much do they like it and
will they miss those shows when there gone? Frankly, YOU don't know;
because you don't even know why people like the shows in the first place.
>...And the problem with schlock SkiFfy shows like "E-2" is that they
>generate an environment that effectively precludes availability of the
>the stuff *I* want to see. If we let NBC get away with doing retreads
>of "LOST IN SPACE" and "WAGON TRAIN," with stupid, *STUPID* scripts and
>plots, that is *all* we are going to get to see on the tube.
Knock it off; you are living in a fantasy world. Other than "B5", what
SF shows do you accept? Commercial TV shows need an audience to exist;
this rule holds for Science Fiction shows also.
> I don't have the *time* to get involved with TV production and spend a
>couple of decades seeing to it that a product gets made to suit me; but
>what I *can* do is organize boycotts, foment, *communicate*, try to
>point out shortcomings, and make people aware of the fact that they're
>being robbed of lifespan by TV shows made by inept toads with delusions
>of competence.
Actually, I wish you would make suggestions to improve shows that you
regard as Science Fiction, so that more similar Science Fiction shows will
be created. [...Perhaps you do.]
> I love TV. I love *WATCHING* TV. And I'm VERY offended by the
>trash that's available to watch, particularly considering the pay
>scales involved.
I'm not always offended by what I think of as "trash TV."
Frankly, I've never understood how SF shows like "B5" or the other shows
you mentioned above can appear other than trash when compared to shows
like "ER." I could care less if someone produces "Trash TV", when I'm
enjoying watching TV (e.g., watching "B5" or "Earth 2").
> Since I believe in freedom of choice, freedom to buy or not to buy,
>I will continue to take the attitude that it is my inalienable right to
>laugh, point, yell "SCHLOCK!" and generally be verbally abusive about
>*any* product which reflects low competence levels, a shoddy,
>unprofessional attitude, and subnormal intelligence and education
>level among both the production crew *and* the fans.
I go along with most of what you say until you talk about the fans. IMO,
the customer rules and any show that makes people feel good about the good
things is a good show in my book [whether I understand or like/tolerate the
show].
> Freedom of speech. You get to say you like it (although there's no
>way you'll be able to *justify* that liking!) and you get to support it.
>*I* get to say I don't like it, explain why, AND I get to call stations
>and complain about it.
Sure, there are many things that you can do to hurt people that are not
criminal acts.
> Even Klinton hasn't had the cojones to try to shut off the First
>Amendment yet.
> Let "EARTH 2" and "SEAQUEST" die the Real Death. They won't be missed.
You don't know what you are talking about, since many people say they love
"Earth 2." IMO shows like "Earth 2" and "My So-Called Life" will be
missed. IMHO elements of shows like "My So-Called Life" might be replaced,
but "Earth 2" elements won't because it has to many metaphysical and
symbolic elements in it (e.g., the two types of spiders may represent the
anima and animus from Jungian psychology [cf. "Psychological Types"]) .
"Earth 2" type of shows will be missed by some people.
Frank
Frank McNeil
>mc...@math.ohio-state.edu (Ted McCoy) wrote:
>>
>> In article <3l77ks$k...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
>> KissTheSky <kisst...@aol.com> wrote:
[deleted]
>I agree with this assesement, I really like the show, but it really
>suffers from incredable lapses in writing. I seems like there are two
>sets of writers, one set are geniuses and the other are idiots. I hope
>this show survives and that will only happen if the good wins out
>over the inane, but since this doesn't happen all that often in TV
>these days, so I have my doubts.
Could you be more specific? Which episodes were written by the geniuses?
Here is a list of the episodes (along with the ratings I found on internet).
<paste-in FROM http://www.best.com/~ftmexpat/e2/e2-ratin.html>
EARTH 2 RATINGS
DATE NIELSON SOURCE FOR
AIRED TITLE RATING RATING
11/06/94 "First Contact" 15.6/23 (1)
11/13/94 "The Man Who Fell To Earth (Two)" 10.5/16 (1)
11/20/94 "Life Lessons" 8.8/14 (1)
11/27/94 "Promises, Promises" 9.7/14 (1)
12/04/94 "A Memory Play" 9.1/14 (1)
12/11/94 "Water"
12/18/94 "The Church of Morgan" 9.0/15 (1)
01/08/95 "The Enemy Within"
01/22/95 "Redemption"
02/05/95 "Moon Cross"
02/19/95 "Better Living Through Morganite, 1" 6.7/11 (2)
02/26/95 "Better Living Through Morganite, 2" 6.6/11 (3)
03/05/95 "Grendlers in the Myst" (?)
03/12/95 "The Greatest Love Story Never Told " 6.6/10 (5)
03/26/95 "Brave New Pacifica" 6.7/12 (6)
</paste-in>
Thank you,
Frank
Gharlane of Eddore
>
> And lo, ghar...@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu (Gharlane of Eddore) spake
> thusly:
>
> > of "LOST IN SPACE" and "WAGON TRAIN," with stupid, *STUPID* scripts and
> > plots, that is *all* we are going to get to see on the tube.
>
> to the stars" in order to get NBC to show it. (Hmm... maybe that's
> what started it?)
Yep. That's what Roddenberry *said* to get it on the air.
Note that at least half a dozen of the scripts from those first couple
of years were pretty damned phenomenal TV work....that couldn't have been
done in a non-SF framework, because the network censors would have figured
out what the writers were complaining about!
>
>> Let "EARTH 2" and "SEAQUEST" die the Real Death. They won't be missed.
>
> I agree about SeaQuest, but Earth2 does have promise. I say let it
> live at least one more season. There really isn't much SF on TV. Can
> we really afford to kill of one of the few shows that shows +some+ of
> the qualities that you (and the rest of us) are looking for?
As soon as I see the veriest vestige of "SF" in "EARTH 2," I might
consider it; but since the people who are MAKING "EARTH 2" keep putting
on airs about how they have no background in "Sci-Fi," and "never watched
'STAR TREK,'" why should I take them any more seriously than their work
justifies? I have yet to see anything from them that constitutes
good work for *any* dramatic milieu....
>
> What are the first-run SF shows on the tube now? In no particular
> order:
>
> ST:Voyager
No, to date "VOYAGER" has been a series of RE-makes, not first-run.
> Earth2
You may call "EARTH 2".... "SF"... if you wish. I don't accede to
your evaluation. "Composite of 'MELROSE PLACE,' 'WAGON TRAIN,' and
'TWIN PEAKS,'" I might buy.
>Babylon 5
Marginal; borderline SF with extremely competent and respectable
people involved. Not true "SF" as long as "psi" and "FTL" are
part of the series format, but internally consistent to a great
degree, with marvelous conception and execution. Closest thing
to real classic SF seen on TV to date. I love it, and go to a
lot of trouble to see it and tape it.
>Sliders
Sub-marginal; they've already apparently violated internal
consistency on several occasions, and demonstrated lack of
background in biology and other sciences requisite for the
writing of SF.
>X-Files
Not SF. Horror/suspense, occasionally using SF plot elements.
(I like it quite a lot, and always watch it.)
>Space Precinct
Kiddie show. I'd enjoy it the way I enjoyed "CAPTAIN SCARLET,"
if I weren't aware of how much good money is being frittered away
making it.
>ST:DS9
Not SF. "Hill Street Blues" with funny foreheads. When I watch
it, I watch it for Nana Visitor and Rene Auberjonois.
>SeaQuest DSV
"KUKLA, FRAN, AND OLLIE" had better scripts, better effects, and
better acting. And "K,F, and O" were a dangsight closer to "SF."
>Lois & Clark
"BEAUTY AND THE BEAST" romance retread. No science involved.
First season eps watchable for Tracy Scoggins. No selling point now.
>The two ST shows will continue for another couple of years whether we
>like them or not simply because they are TREK.
Don't count on it... at least one Paramount V.P. wants to cut losses
and composite the two shows to cut production expenses.
>Babylon 5 is shaky because people insist on slamming it simply because
>it +isn't+ Trek.
Not all that shaky; the ratings are fairly good, and it *looks* like a
third year might be fairly likely.
>
....<deletia>
>
>Put this all together, and what do you have? A cross section of TV
>quality in one small (on TV, anyway) genre. Until there are more SF
>shows in regular production, we can't really afford to lose a show
>like E2, when it does show promise.
Tell you what, any time there are more than two one-hour "SF" shows
on the air that I *care* if I miss, I'll stipulate that we can afford
to have crud like E2 tying up budget bucks and air slots. Until
then, don't hype the show on the basis that we can't afford to lose
it; we can *always* afford to lose trash. Frankly, I'd sooner see
"RIPTIDE" re-runs than "EARTH 2." (They're cleverer.)
Franklin Hummel
(Gharlane of Eddore) writes:
>In <3lhlr6$p...@sundog.tiac.net> gor...@tiac.net wrote:
>>The two ST shows will continue for another couple of years whether we
>>like them or not simply because they are TREK.
>
>Don't count on it... at least one Paramount V.P. wants to cut losses
>and composite the two shows to cut production expenses.
First mention I have heard of this. "Cut losses"? Do you
have any further information on how VOYAGER is being seen at Paramount
that you can share, Gharlane?
-- Frank Hummel [ Internet: hum...@mit.edu - GEnie: F.HUMMEL ]
Gharlane of Eddore
>
...<deletia>
> Some people like "Earth 2" and "Seaquest". How much do they like it and
> will they miss those shows when there gone? Frankly, YOU don't know;
> because you don't even know why people like the shows in the first place.
Sure I do. They like those shows because they have inadequately educated
critical capacity, a lack of general knowledge, and poor taste in
storytelling, actors, and ideas.
>
....<deletia>
>
> Knock it off; you are living in a fantasy world.
Dang straight. It's called "InterNet."
> Other than "B5", what SF shows do you accept?
Well, "MR. PEEPERS," "MEN INTO SPACE," "DOOMWATCH," "THE WILD WILD WEST,"
"SCIENCE FICTION THEATER," and "THIS OLD HOUSE" weren't too bad.
> Commercial TV shows need an audience to exist; this rule holds for
> Science Fiction shows also.
I thought we were talking about "EARTH 2" here, not Science Fiction.
> Actually, I wish you would make suggestions to improve shows that you
> regard as Science Fiction, so that more similar Science Fiction shows
> will be created. [...Perhaps you do.]
You must have missed my entry showing how a five-year story arc on
"SLIDERS" could be made considerably more interesting and decent
than the show is likely to be.....
> I'm not always offended by what I think of as "trash TV."
> Frankly, I've never understood how SF shows like "B5" or the other shows
> you mentioned above can appear other than trash when compared to shows
> like "ER." I could care less if someone produces "Trash TV", when I'm
> enjoying watching TV (e.g., watching "B5" or "Earth 2").
Do you really mean you could care less, or did you mean you *couldn't*
care less? Please think about what you were trying to say, and then
explain which concept you really intended.
> I go along with most of what you say until you talk about the fans.
> IMO, the customer rules and any show that makes people feel good about
> the good things is a good show in my book [whether I understand or
> like/tolerate the show].
Interesting. From my viewpoint, "EARTH 2" is the Ripple Wine of
TV SkiFfy. I can understand why it might make people lacking in
discernment or logical competence feel good, since the stories are
so simplistic and fairy-tale childish that they're easily accessible
to the most brain-damaged; but if you want children's fantasy shows
that make people feel good, why not switch channels and find the
latest of Shelly Duvall's products? Her stories are much more
coherent and well-produced, very will written, and deal with the
same kind of moralistic fantasy that the Three Stooges producing
"EARTH 2" are trying for, and not attaining.... (...and "FAERIE
TALE THEATER" had better acting, production, scripting, and FX
on a vastly smaller budget, too.)
....<deletia>
GOE> Let "EARTH 2" and "SEAQUEST" die the Real Death. They won't be missed.
> You don't know what you are talking about, since many people say they love
> "Earth 2." IMO shows like "Earth 2" and "My So-Called Life" will be
Well, "many people" supported the Third Reich, too.
> missed. IMHO elements of shows like "My So-Called Life" might be replaced,
> but "Earth 2" elements won't because it has to many metaphysical and
> symbolic elements in it (e.g., the two types of spiders may represent the
> anima and animus from Jungian psychology [cf. "Psychological Types"]) .
> "Earth 2" type of shows will be missed by some people.
Now, this is a REAL hoot; aside from the modern discounting of Jungian
Archetypes, which now seem to mainly appear (appropriately) in "Literature"
curricula, the idea of a man who can't differentiate between a comparative
and a preposition harping on the subtle mystical "metaphysical elements"
of a kiddie show...... inexorably reminds me of the endless frat-boy
debates on the Real Meaning Of "TWIN PEAKS," an apparently endless
colloquium that was *finally* halted by the cancellation of the series
and the confession of a number of the writers, who publicly admitted
that they had NO idea where the series was going, and just made it up
as they went along.
Duggan, Flint, and Levin have *repeatedly* proven that they have no
business attempting this sort of show. The ratings support this assertion.
It's time to get them out of the drivers' seats and back into second-
banana slots where they belong; they are NOT competent to do this sort
of work.
Face it, when you take PRODUCTION staff with a background in cop shows,
doctor shows, and stuff like "WONDER YEARS" and ineffable crap like
"CHINA BEACH," and give them a zillion bucks to make an SF show, and
don't restrain them to a sensible format or get them a technical advisor,
you are NOT going to get an SF show; you're going to get what they know
HOW to make, which is "CHINA BEACH" with kids, composited with the TV
shows they watched as children.
They're not up to it.
They've proven it repeatedly.
Turn off the money spigot and send them home.
Helen Angela Lee
air. If airtime is a concern, let's attack Step by Step instead of Earth 2.
I consider myself a strong supporter of the First Amendment, maybe even
an absolutist. For all you Earth 2 haters out there, I'm glad you feel
free to shout it from the rooftops. It's just that I don't see any
respect for the rest of us. So
maybe I have bad taste because the show makes me happy for an hour every
so often. There are better things to fight about.
And I would argue that some Earth 2 haters are undermining all science
fiction by so vehemently going for the show's cancellation. Earth 2 has
problems, just like every other SF show in existence. But I'd like to see
more SF on TV, good or bad. After that happens, maybe then we can
nitpick.
I believe improvements in SF should come from people who love the
genre and want to see it survive, not those who don't care about it or
want to see it die. That goes for Earth 2, too.-Helen
-montalvo m.a.
Mark Thompson <mt...@cyberspace.com> wrote:
>Gharlane of Eddore (ghar...@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu) wrote:
>
>
>: ...And the problem with schlock SkiFfy shows like "E-2" is that they
>: of "LOST IN SPACE" and "WAGON TRAIN," with stupid, *STUPID* scripts and
>: plots, that is *all* we are going to get to see on the tube.
>: I don't have the *time* to get involved with TV production and spend a
>: what I *can* do is organize boycotts, foment, *communicate*, try to
>: point out shortcomings, and make people aware of the fact that they're
>: being robbed of lifespan by TV shows made by inept toads with delusions
>: of competence.
>
>look at this and think, "Wow, people hate this type of Sci Fi"; they'll
>think "People hate Sci Fi". The only way different forms of SF will get
>on the air is if SF becomes an accepted part of TV, the same way that
>doctor, hospital, and newsmagazine shows are. Screaming about certain
>shows just poisons the atmosphere for all SF.
But Gharlane specifically says he's telling them exactly _why_ he
hates scifi. I've also seen him show often enough that he loves SF
(he's not exactly shy about stating his opinions). If we just don't
watch, they're going to take the least common denominator: people
hate [scifi|SF] (and evidently most of them don't know the difference).
If we're vocal with our opinions, maybe some day they'll figure out
the difference, and we might just get some more good SF on the tube.
Maria
Kyle Haight
>coherent and well-produced, very will written, and deal with the
You spelled "well" incorrectly.
Then again, perhaps this was deliberate, given the date on the
message.
Kyle Haight kha...@netcom.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This post was about war, racism, intolerance, | No it wasn't! The
heroism, justice, and the inevitable triumph | author got millions in
of good over evil. | Frungy endorsements!
Mark Thompson
: critical capacity, a lack of general knowledge, and poor taste in
: storytelling, actors, and ideas.
"Poor taste". This is what really gets on my nerves. You don't simply
say that you don't like these shows, you say that anyone who does is an
uneducated dolt. If someone dares disagree with your OPINION, then that
simply proves that they aren't intelligent enough to effectively support
their own opinion.
: > Other than "B5", what SF shows do you accept?
: Well, "MR. PEEPERS," "MEN INTO SPACE," "DOOMWATCH," "THE WILD WILD WEST,"
: "SCIENCE FICTION THEATER," and "THIS OLD HOUSE" weren't too bad.
How nice of you to pick mostly obscure shows, so that few people here
will be able to critically analyze them. Oh, I forgot. No one else here
has the intellectual capacity to analyze them correctly anyway.
: > Commercial TV shows need an audience to exist; this rule holds for
: > Science Fiction shows also.
: I thought we were talking about "EARTH 2" here, not Science Fiction.
We ARE talking about science fiction, as it is understood by 99% of the
American public, not by the insane definitions of a small subset of the
science fiction fan community.
: > Actually, I wish you would make suggestions to improve shows that you
: > regard as Science Fiction, so that more similar Science Fiction shows
: > will be created. [...Perhaps you do.]
: You must have missed my entry showing how a five-year story arc on
: "SLIDERS" could be made considerably more interesting and decent
: than the show is likely to be.....
I did see your story arc. When I read it, I realized that anyone can
come up with a five-year story arc. Coming up with a five-year story
arc that is intelligent and entertaining is something else. Your arc
seemed too reminiscent of the A-Team. Good guys running from government
goons who eventually wind up working for them. It is such a hackneyed
plot device, which shows up far too often in science fiction shows.
Someone invents something and is then on the run from some government
(or some other type of authority) organization.
Sliders is set up in an anthological fashion. I enjoy shows with
continuing arcs like Babylon 5, but not every show has to be like that.
Defining what a show like Sliders needs to be like to meet your definition
of quality, and then criticizing it when it doesn't follow your
guidelines to the letter, is intellectual sloppiness. You need to apply
a more objective standard than that.
: > You don't know what you are talking about, since many people say they love
: > "Earth 2." IMO shows like "Earth 2" and "My So-Called Life" will be
: Well, "many people" supported the Third Reich, too.
Oh, cute. So now you imply that anyone who enjoys Earth 2 is a Nazi.
: Face it, when you take PRODUCTION staff with a background in cop shows,
: doctor shows, and stuff like "WONDER YEARS" and ineffable crap like
: "CHINA BEACH," and give them a zillion bucks to make an SF show, and
: don't restrain them to a sensible format or get them a technical advisor,
: you are NOT going to get an SF show; you're going to get what they know
: HOW to make, which is "CHINA BEACH" with kids, composited with the TV
: shows they watched as children.
Whether you like it or not, the producers of Earth 2 now can claim that
they have a background in scince fiction. Everyone has to start
somewhere.
I think it's a refreshing change. Whether you personally enjoyed their
previous work or not, the people involved are coming from diverse
(and successful) backgrounds in TV and creating a different type of
science fiction show. Earth 2 is more concerned with exploring character
drama than in describing hardware minutiae in detail. Maybe you're just
not able to effectively analyze character issues within a TV show. Plot
is only one part of a good TV show.
Even without your holy technical advisor, the science in Earth 2 is
pretty plausible. Their ships don't travel faster than light,
the vehicles are solar powered, and the communications gear is essentially
a portable phone strapped to the head. Even the virtual reality aspect
of the gear doesn't seem to be that much of a stretch. Just because
they don't spend time in the show boring us with details on exactly
how each item works doesn't mean it's implausible. Characters in police
and doctor shows don't generally spend time explaining how telephones
and automobiles, why should characters in science fiction shows behave
any differently? The only thing that is really beyond the science of
today is the metaphysical plane of the new world, but I'm willing to
grant them that since it's an integral part of the story.
: They're not up to it.
: They've proven it repeatedly.
: Turn off the money spigot and send them home.
They are up to it. They've created an extremely interesting science
fiction show, one unlike any others that have been on TV before. I
hope the show gets renewed.
Gharlane of Eddore
> In <3lkosg$m...@news.csus.edu>,
> > coherent and well-produced, very will written, and deal with the
> You spelled "well" incorrectly.
>
> Then again, perhaps this was deliberate, given the date on the
> message.
>
Nope. It was "well" when it left this node. Someone, somewhere down
the chain from me, is doing one-character elisions and/or replacements,
probably just so he/she/it/them/xu can laugh at me.
Frank McNeil
>In article <3liukl$7...@news1.best.com> ftme...@best.com (Frank McNeil) writes:
>>
>...<deletia>
>> Some people like "Earth 2" and "Seaquest". How much do they like it and
>> will they miss those shows when there gone? Frankly, YOU don't know;
>> because you don't even know why people like the shows in the first place.
>Sure I do. They like those shows because they have inadequately educated
>critical capacity, a lack of general knowledge, and poor taste in
>storytelling, actors, and ideas.
>>
>....<deletia>
>>
>> Knock it off; you are living in a fantasy world.
>Dang straight. It's called "InterNet."
Yeah. Good point.
>> Other than "B5", what SF shows do you accept?
>Well, "MR. PEEPERS," "MEN INTO SPACE," "DOOMWATCH," "THE WILD WILD WEST,"
>"SCIENCE FICTION THEATER," and "THIS OLD HOUSE" weren't too bad.
Thanks.
>> Commercial TV shows need an audience to exist; this rule holds for
>> Science Fiction shows also.
>I thought we were talking about "EARTH 2" here, not Science Fiction.
Ha! Ha! Very funny.
>> Actually, I wish you would make suggestions to improve shows that you
>> regard as Science Fiction, so that more similar Science Fiction shows
>> will be created. [...Perhaps you do.]
>You must have missed my entry showing how a five-year story arc on
>"SLIDERS" could be made considerably more interesting and decent
>than the show is likely to be.....
"Sliders" isn't the type of show I like or watch. It may be a good show,
but I prefer shows like "Earth 2" or "ER."
"Sliders" unlike "Earth 2" and "ER" doesn't leave much to the imagination,
hence, I don't read about it even though I've seen the previous episodes.
I would like to read your post; but I couldn't find it when I did a quick
search in this newsgroup. It would have helped to know what date it
was posted [because it probably hasn't been deleted from netcom.com usenet
spool]. [IMO, that article may have been very interesting.]
>> I'm not always offended by what I think of as "trash TV."
>> Frankly, I've never understood how SF shows like "B5" or the other shows
>> you mentioned above can appear other than trash when compared to shows
>> like "ER." I could care less if someone produces "Trash TV", when I'm
>> enjoying watching TV (e.g., watching "B5" or "Earth 2").
>Do you really mean you could care less, or did you mean you *couldn't*
>care less? Please think about what you were trying to say, and then
>explain which concept you really intended.
O.K., you got me again. [I wish I could by a computer program that would
spot errors like the one you pointed out; bad habits are difficult to
break.]
My point was that IMO most shows (I watch) seem like trash when compared
to a show like "ER", hence I don't care if a show can be labeled "trash"
while I'm enjoying the show.
>> I go along with most of what you say until you talk about the fans.
>> IMO, the customer rules and any show that makes people feel good about
>> the good things is a good show in my book [whether I understand or
>> like/tolerate the show].
>Interesting. From my viewpoint, "EARTH 2" is the Ripple Wine of
>TV SkiFfy. I can understand why it might make people lacking in
>discernment or logical competence feel good, since the stories are
>so simplistic and fairy-tale childish that they're easily accessible
>to the most brain-damaged; but if you want children's fantasy shows
>that make people feel good, why not switch channels and find the
>latest of Shelly Duvall's products? Her stories are much more
>coherent and well-produced, very will written, and deal with the
>same kind of moralistic fantasy that the Three Stooges producing
>"EARTH 2" are trying for, and not attaining.... (...and "FAERIE
>TALE THEATER" had better acting, production, scripting, and FX
>on a vastly smaller budget, too.)
First, I don't know who Shelly Duvall is. Second, I have never considered
the fact that other people find a show incoherent to mean anything other
than the show or film might be complicated enough for me to enjoy.
>....<deletia>
>GOE> Let "EARTH 2" and "SEAQUEST" die the Real Death. They won't be missed.
>> You don't know what you are talking about, since many people say they love
>> "Earth 2." IMO shows like "Earth 2" and "My So-Called Life" will be
>Well, "many people" supported the Third Reich, too.
I don't think this comparison is apt, since neither "Earth 2" or "My
So-Called Life" encourages the slaughter of human beings, as did some of the
Third Reich leadership.
>> missed. IMHO elements of shows like "My So-Called Life" might be replaced,
>> but "Earth 2" elements won't because it has to many metaphysical and
>> symbolic elements in it (e.g., the two types of spiders may represent the
>> anima and animus from Jungian psychologyl [cf. "Psychologicall Types"]) .
>> "Earth 2" type of shows will be missed by some people.
>Now, this is a REAL hoot; aside from the modern discounting of Jungian
>Archetypes, which now seem to mainly appear (appropriately) in "Literature"
>curricula, the idea of a man who can't differentiate between a comparative
>and a preposition harping on the subtle mystical "metaphysical elements"
>of a kiddie show...... inexorably reminds me of the endless frat-boy
>debates on the Real Meaning Of "TWIN PEAKS," an apparently endless
>colloquium that was *finally* halted by the cancellation of the series
>and the confession of a number of the writers, who publicly admitted
>that they had NO idea where the series was going, and just made it up
>as they went along.
First, I didn't mention anything about Jungian Archetypes. I referred to
a concept that is defined in the "Definitions" chapter of Jung's book
"Psychological Types." [I was hoping some people would pick the book while
browsing in a bookstore or Library, read those couple of pages and then
think about the spiders and other elements of the last "Earth 2" episode.]
Second, there was nothing subtle about the use anima/animus in the spider
episode and there wasn't anything mystical worth mentioning [IMHO]. There
have been--I think some mystical elements in "Earth 2", but [IMO] they'll
never be discussed in a TV newsgroup (e.g., why the last shot of Adair's
dream visitor was motionless).
>Duggan, Flint, and Levin have *repeatedly* proven that they have no
>business attempting this sort of show. The ratings support this assertion.
>It's time to get them out of the drivers' seats and back into second-
>banana slots where they belong; they are NOT competent to do this sort
>of work.
Do you even know, what Duggan, Flint and Levin (and perhaps Billy Ray)
were even attempting to do in the first place? I don't.
>Face it, when you take PRODUCTION staff with a background in cop shows,
>doctor shows, and stuff like "WONDER YEARS" and ineffable crap like
>"CHINA BEACH," and give them a zillion bucks to make an SF show, and
>don't restrain them to a sensible format or get them a technical advisor,
>you are NOT going to get an SF show; you're going to get what they know
>HOW to make, which is "CHINA BEACH" with kids, composited with the TV
>shows they watched as children.
"give them a zillion bucks to make an SF show"
"or get them a technical advisor"
It is possible that they are more interested in prompting people to think
about "Earth Prime" in 1995 than writing technically correct " Science
Fiction.
>They're not up to it.
I would discuss this point, if we could first agree to what they are
trying to do. It is an interesting point.
>They've proven it repeatedly.
>Turn off the money spigot and send them home.
Then, IMO one risky attempt at doing something completely different will
be lost.
[I realize, that you Gharlane understand a lot of things, but I'm not sure
you understand what Carol Flint and others were trying to do with "Earth 2"
--farnk.]
Frank
Mikey
(Gharlane of Eddore) wrote:
> > Other than "B5", what SF shows do you accept?
>
> Well, "MR. PEEPERS," "MEN INTO SPACE," "DOOMWATCH," "THE WILD WILD WEST,"
> "SCIENCE FICTION THEATER," and "THIS OLD HOUSE" weren't too bad.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I especially like the episode where Bob Vila and master carpenter Norm
(Norm!) went to the Cydonia complex on Mars to fix up the five sided alien
pyramid and install a radiant heating system. Interestingly, although
constructed over 750,000 years ago, the pyramid's foundation was
pronounced within code by the local inspector.
--
///mjh///
Net Wanderer
Seeking Truth
Bored Stiff
Mikey
(Gharlane of Eddore) wrote:
> "Obscure?" An intriguing assertion, considering the solid following that
> all of these shows, all still on the air save for "MR. PEEPERS," *HAVE*.
> (Or did "THIS OLD HOUSE" get zapped when the guy sold out to a hardware
> company? I've forgotten.... but it was utterly amazing SF while it was
> on, and nearly every PBS station carried it.)
Bob Vila went on to make millions in endorsement despite the petty actions
of the Public Dole... Errr Broadcasting System. The show itself continued
with a newer host with 1/4 the personality. Norm started a sequel series
called "The New Yankee Workshop" where he maintained a way station for
interstellar alein travelers and built zero point energy generators,
anty-gravity coils and hand held scalar wave weaponry potent enought to
flatten Everest.
Or did I dream that?
Mikey
> [I realize, that you Gharlane understand a lot of things, but I'm not sure
> you understand what Carol Flint and others were trying to do with "Earth 2"
> --farnk.]
Errr..... make a living? Who's "farnk?"
Martin Michael Jarrio
Someone said (sorry...cites were lost...):
>>
>> ....And the problem with schlock SkiFfy shows like "E-2" is that they
>> the stuff *I* want to see. If we let NBC get away with doing retreads
>> of "LOST IN SPACE" and "WAGON TRAIN," with stupid, *STUPID* scripts and
>> plots, that is *all* we are going to get to see on the tube.
>>
>I figure the more the merrier. How many cop shows did we have to go
>through before they delivered "Homicide"? How many hospital shows
>before "ER"? (I've never seen ER, but people seem to like it.)
>
>The friendlier the atmosphere for science fiction or whatever genre
>you like, the more chances there will be for getting quality shows.
>
>
>I happen to think Earth2 is a lot of fun, but then I've liked worse
>shows. So what?
>
The problem here is that science fiction is _still_ outside the mainstream
of television viewing. _Way_, _way_ outside. Most people I talk to hear
the words "science fiction television" and think "Oh, Trekkies." There
is a stereotype that sf fans are nerdy geeks who watch goofy shows. As
long as network television is producing crap like E2 and SQ, it will be
impossible to convince the average viewer that other sf shows _are_
worth watching (most notably Babylon 5, but also to a limited extent the
Star Trek shows--I'll give them the benefit of the doubt even though I've
personally lost interest).
The essential problem, I think, is that there has not been any recognized
_mainstream_ success in sftv, but there have been many failures. So when
a "bad" sf show gets touted by the networks as being "science fiction",
the general response is, "See, that's why sf is a waste of time."
In other words, I, for one, feel that the "friendlier atmosphere" for
science fiction television will not come about among the general pop-
ulation as long as poor-quality sf is the rule, rather than the exception.
Well, that's my 0.02...your mileage may vary.
-Marty Jarrio
-gt4...@prism.gatech.edu
Gharlane of Eddore
mtho...@cyberspace.com (Mark Thompson) writes:
>Gharlane of Eddore (ghar...@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu) wrote:
>: Sure I do. They like those shows because they have inadequately
>: educated critical capacity, a lack of general knowledge, and poor
>: taste in storytelling, actors, and ideas.
>
> "Poor taste". This is what really gets on my nerves. You don't simply
> say that you don't like these shows, you say that anyone who does is an
> uneducated dolt. If someone dares disagree with your OPINION, then that
> simply proves that they aren't intelligent enough to effectively support
> their own opinion.
Exactly. Do you have some problem with this?
>
>: > Other than "B5", what SF shows do you accept?
>
>: Well, "MR. PEEPERS," "MEN INTO SPACE," "DOOMWATCH," "THE WILD WILD WEST,"
>: "SCIENCE FICTION THEATER," and "THIS OLD HOUSE" weren't too bad.
>
> How nice of you to pick mostly obscure shows, so that few people here
> will be able to critically analyze them. Oh, I forgot. No one else
> here has the intellectual capacity to analyze them correctly anyway.
"Obscure?" An intriguing assertion, considering the solid following that
all of these shows, all still on the air save for "MR. PEEPERS," *HAVE*.
(Or did "THIS OLD HOUSE" get zapped when the guy sold out to a hardware
company? I've forgotten.... but it was utterly amazing SF while it was
on, and nearly every PBS station carried it.)
>: > Commercial TV shows need an audience to exist; this rule holds for
>: > Science Fiction shows also.
>
>: I thought we were talking about "EARTH 2" here, not Science Fiction.
>
> We ARE talking about science fiction, as it is understood by 99% of the
> American public, not by the insane definitions of a small subset of the
> science fiction fan community.
"A small subset of the science fiction fan community?" Hrmph. Perhaps
you should take a close look at how many Hugo Award Nominations are
garnered by the "Amblin'"crap this year; that will give you a somewhat
better idea of the disdain with which the "Amblin'" products are received,
even by ratpacks of congenital degenerates like the "Dorsai Very Irregulars,"
who are notorious for voting in favor of *ANY* TV show that has a presentable
babe in it. (I believe they once got "BEWITCHED" all the way to the
voting finals, as part of a campaign to get Elizabeth Montgomery to attend
an awards banquet....)
>: > Actually, I wish you would make suggestions to improve shows that you
>: > regard as Science Fiction, so that more similar Science Fiction shows
>: > will be created. [...Perhaps you do.]
>
>: You must have missed my entry showing how a five-year story arc on
>: "SLIDERS" could be made considerably more interesting and decent
>: than the show is likely to be.....
>
> I did see your story arc. When I read it, I realized that anyone can
> come up with a five-year story arc. Coming up with a five-year story
> arc that is intelligent and entertaining is something else. Your arc
> seemed too reminiscent of the A-Team. Good guys running from government
> goons who eventually wind up working for them. It is such a hackneyed
> plot device, which shows up far too often in science fiction shows.
> Someone invents something and is then on the run from some government
> (or some other type of authority) organization.
You obviously lacked the intellectual acumen and educational background
to *appreciate* my work of genius; you've missed several of the major
points, and are apparently oblivious to the suggested focus variations
in each year of the series development.
> Sliders is set up in an anthological fashion. I enjoy shows with
> continuing arcs like Babylon 5, but not every show has to be like that.
> Defining what a show like Sliders needs to be like to meet your definition
> of quality, and then criticizing it when it doesn't follow your
> guidelines to the letter, is intellectual sloppiness. You need to apply
> a more objective standard than that.
I have. When a show's writers don't know the difference between a virus
and a bacterium, and think *any* randomly selected mold is a source of a
useful antibiotic, I tune out.
>: > You don't know what you are talking about, since many people say they love
>: > "Earth 2." IMO shows like "Earth 2" and "My So-Called Life" will be
>
>: Well, "many people" supported the Third Reich, too.
>
> Oh, cute. So now you imply that anyone who enjoys Earth 2 is a Nazi.
No, but the implication, that anyone who's sufficiently intellectually
challenged to find "EARTH 2" a worthwhile endeavor would be easy
proselytization meat for religious or political mountebanks, is obvious.
>: Face it, when you take PRODUCTION staff with a background in cop shows,
>: doctor shows, and stuff like "WONDER YEARS" and ineffable crap like
>: "CHINA BEACH," and give them a zillion bucks to make an SF show, and
>: don't restrain them to a sensible format or get them a technical advisor,
>: you are NOT going to get an SF show; you're going to get what they know
>: HOW to make, which is "CHINA BEACH" with kids, composited with the TV
>: shows they watched as children.
>
> Whether you like it or not, the producers of Earth 2 now can claim that
> they have a background in scince fiction. Everyone has to start
> somewhere.
No. They can legitimately claim to have a background in a *FAILED*
attempt at producing Science Fiction. Heck, their show doesn't even
qualify as "Sci-Fi." Any randomly selected Japanese monster movie
from the fifties contains more plot coherence and more human values,
and more believeable warm fuzzy vibes. ("No! Don't hurt the monster!
Gammera is a *friend* to children!" beats the hell out of Magic
Grendler Slobber any day of the week.)
And besides that, the MAGNIFICENT STUPIDITY of the scripts that have
dealt with aspects of human physiology have proven that, while some
of them may have *worked* on doctor shows, they didn't learn diddly
in the process. I quote you "bone-healer vaccine," "pineal glands,"
and "worm bullets" as typical examples; there are many many more.
> I think it's a refreshing change. Whether you personally enjoyed their
> previous work or not, the people involved are coming from diverse
> (and successful) backgrounds in TV and creating a different type of
> science fiction show. Earth 2 is more concerned with exploring character
> drama than in describing hardware minutiae in detail. Maybe you're just
> not able to effectively analyze character issues within a TV show. Plot
> is only one part of a good TV show.
Wrong. The "character drama" you're so tumesced over is taking place at
a level beneath contempt; the character motivations are neither coherent
nor mature, and certainly not believeable. They tend to change from
show to show, and *not* because of long-term character development, but
just because the writers can only deal with stock archetypes; the Strong
Woman Leader, softened by love for her child. The Noble Teacher, with
a Terrible Secret. The Greedy Coward. The Adoring Perfect Woman
who will remake the Greedy Coward. The Evil Technocrat With A Secret
and Manipulable Morals and Values. The Young-Stud Pilot Jock.
Lots of Rubber Monsters who can and can't perform Magic, as necessary.
As for your "successful" backgrounds comment, seems to me that most of
their previous shows have been cancelled for ratings, although the
TV-GUIDE-hyped "CHINA BEACH" hung on a bit longer than most, and did
well in the funded-awards category.
> Even without your holy technical advisor, the science in Earth 2 is
> pretty plausible. Their ships don't travel faster than light,
Bullcragglies. In the pilot movie, they claimed to travel 22 light years...
...in 22 years. They also ignored the time dilation inherent in travel
AT or *near* the speed of light. They also have the words "24 light years"
in the script at one point, so they don't even know how far they're going;
or to WHERE. (Note the constant harping on "THE G-8 system," definite
article; as though there's only one, or that "G-8" is a proper name for a
stellar system 22 light years away... at that distance, we can bloody
well *SEE* what's there; a search of a star guide discloses *ONE* G8
star, a scosh over 22 l.y. away, but there's no way you can get to it
in 22 years without exceeding the speed of light. Your "plausible"
writers appear to be presuming that you can accerate from zero to the
speed of light instantly, and from C down to 0 at the far end; otherwise,
you'd need to acclerate and decelerate en route, and the trip, even if
you got up TO the speed of light, would take LONGER than the distance
in light years. We've gone through this, and through this, and *explained*
it on the topic over and over again, and the fact that you find the
Official "EARTH 2" party line "plausible" just shows you don't know enough
to be able to tell "Fantasy" from "Science Fiction.")
> the vehicles are solar powered, and the communications gear is essentially
We've already been through the utter ridiculousness of the "Solar Power"
story. At *LENGTH.* Don't start it up again unless you have something
valid to add; I've *built* solar-power vehicles, and I know better.
A number of the engineers on the topic know better, and have quoted known
values and numbers. Even with 100% conversion efficiency, the "silicon
solar cells" in those silly little fans couldn't give you enough power to
run more than a transistor radio receiver....
> a portable phone strapped to the head. Even the virtual reality aspect
> of the gear doesn't seem to be that much of a stretch. Just because
Only in the way they show it, use it, describe it, and jerk the capability
around from show to show, and within individual shows. They're not even
consistent on their silly-ass portrayal of VR.
I'd also like to point out that if we haven't achieved *considerably*
better than that in 200 years, it will have to be because we've killed
off our planet and died out as a species. A direct neural implant
and information-storage central nervous system adjunct is a MINIMAL
expectation; engineered symbiotic life forms under control of a
"housekeeping" computer implant, little nanobots that scurry around
patching you up at the subcellular level, would have been far more
appropriate. (Put the kid in the sun, the kid's skin turns silver
to ward off UV damage; stuff like that.)
> they don't spend time in the show boring us with details on exactly
> how each item works doesn't mean it's implausible. Characters in police
Again, BULLcragglies. To quote Roddenberry, "You don't have the cop stop
to explain how his revolver works." ...But you for *damn* sure don't have
him suddenly able to plug the revolver into his squad car when it runs
out of gas, and drive away in hot pursuit, running on revolver power.
Or to put it in "EARTH 2" terms, you don't have "gear" that shines a
hugely bright red light in your eye when you're in a low light-level
environment. What you DO have is equipment that's stable, self-repairing,
out of the way (i.e. implanted in your bod) and behaves SENSIBLY.
> and doctor shows don't generally spend time explaining how telephones
> and automobiles, why should characters in science fiction shows behave
> any differently? The only thing that is really beyond the science of
Primarily because, if you don't know something can be built, and you
don't know how it works, you can't figure out how it will behave or
interact with the PEOPLE, and the PEOPLE are the stories. When the
PEOPLE are in a world where the technology and background are not defined,
they are NOT in a "Science Fiction" environment. They are in a G-D
*KIDDIE FANTASY.*
And to quote Lester Del Rey, "When ANYTHING can happen, who gives a f___."
> today is the metaphysical plane of the new world, but I'm willing to
> grant them that since it's an integral part of the story.
Grant away. If their silly-ass "metaphysical plane" were actually used
in an imaginative way, or even just coherently and stably, I'd do something
besides throwing over-ripe kiwifruit at the screen when it's on. As it
is, we've seen it done better in FAR too many previous works, and it's
neither new nor well-done.
>: They're not up to it.
>: They've proven it repeatedly.
>: Turn off the money spigot and send them home.
>
> They are up to it. They've created an extremely interesting science
> fiction show, one unlike any others that have been on TV before. I
> hope the show gets renewed.
No. They've created a silly kiddie show, and the ratings reflect this.
Running in "Prime Time," they'll die even quicker.
They had a chance to do something great and wonderful. They blew that
chance doing remakes of bad scripts from non-SF milieux, by not getting
competent help, and by presuming that they could shoot for the lowest
common denominator and get enough idiots to watch to make it look like
they were doing a TV show, instead of just banking their salaries without
earning them.
The proof is on your screen again tonight. Watch it, if you have a strong
stomach, then look up the ratings, and ask yourself if any more of this
crap deserves to exist. If you're honest, your reaction will be to pull
the chain and get rid of it.
Agent J
Gharlane of Eddore <ghar...@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu> wrote:
>No. They can legitimately claim to have a background in a *FAILED*
>attempt at producing Science Fiction. Heck, their show doesn't even
>qualify as "Sci-Fi." Any randomly selected Japanese monster movie
>from the fifties contains more plot coherence and more human values,
>and more believeable warm fuzzy vibes. ("No! Don't hurt the monster!
>Gammera is a *friend* to children!" beats the hell out of Magic
>Grendler Slobber any day of the week.)
That's "Gamera"
Why do you continually perpetuate the ignorance and lack of respect that
American distributors give these films, mutilating the very name of
everyone's favorite turtle?
Noticing he hasn't taken part in the Gamera flamewar in almost a year,
--
<*> J <*> "The ultimate battle between good and evil is really goofy!"
Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to
be lost under the burden of juvenile folly an ignorant superstition.-Asimov
Keith Ferguson
have to be complicated in order to be good. That's ridiculous. Earth 2
has decent writing. They don't ignore previous episodes as if they never
happened, ala Star Trek. The characters are true to the nature that
they set from the beginning.
Arguing that it is terrible just because the plot isn't
complicated is stupid. And if it doesn't fit within some person's
rigid views of what "Science Fiction" is, so what?! It's entertaining,
and really, that's all that counts.
KF
kella
I've been skimming throught the volumes of mail in the sf group when
something caught my eye.
(Sorry I can't paste the message-- program is wacked this week)
Someone said that people like E2 because essentially they are
underintelligent and have no appreciation for writing and the like.
Welllll, this made me want to put in my 2 cents.
I like Earth 2. I am a biology student with a science background larger
than the average person. So when I see the technospeak E2 or any other sf
program uses I can recognize it for what it is, even see the references
in the words.
I like Earth2. I am a disciple of literature. I've read the greats; even
studied and analyzed them. I know what constitutes "good" in a written
work, not only because of my opinions, but also by analysis of technique
and skill. There are many people in the world who make the study of
literature their lifes-work; I am merely a fan of literature.
I recognize that E2 does not have good writing. That's OK in my opinion.
I don't like the show because of it's finely crafted plot lines and deft
use of ironic allegory. I like it because of its premise. Something about
is fires my imagination. So I'll watch it each week, groan at the blatant
corny and heavy-handed writing, but yes, basically enjoy it.
Please do not use overall offesive statements as arguments to make your
point of view. It makes you oafish to those who differ with you and
juvenile to those who side with you. But, of course, you are entitled to
use such statments is you are the absolute authority on the subject at
hand. But that's quite a small minority, don't you think?
And in the final tone, IT'S JUST TV. Let's cool down, get out of the
house, and run around the block a few times. Or go to the beach (park...
whatever is near you house). Or even pick up a book. Because when
arguements deteoriate to such a level there's not anything constructive
that can be said.
Of course, feel free to oppose my viewpoint. But I've respected your
views without putting you down. And I am offering to hear your side of
the story.
Cheers, differing sf fans
kella
J...@sdsu.edu
>
> [I realize, that you Gharlane understand a lot of things, but I'm not sure
> you understand what Carol Flint and others were trying to do with "Earth 2"
> --farnk.]
>
> Frank
>
>
Why do you bother even arguing with him? He doesn't like the show.
He is never going to like the show. Who cares.
Julie
Gharlane of Eddore
>
...<deletia>
>
> I recognize that E2 does not have good writing. That's OK in my opinion.
> I don't like the show because of it's finely crafted plot lines and deft
"Its?"
> use of ironic allegory. I like it because of its premise. Something about
> is fires my imagination. So I'll watch it each week, groan at the blatant
"It?"
> corny and heavy-handed writing, but yes, basically enjoy it.
>
>Please do not use overall offesive statements as arguments to make your
"Offensive?"
>point of view. It makes you oafish to those who differ with you and
>juvenile to those who side with you. But, of course, you are entitled to
>use such statments is you are the absolute authority on the subject at
"As?"
>hand. But that's quite a small minority, don't you think?
....and the last line doesn't even make sense in context.
....<deletia>
>arguements deteoriate to such a level there's not anything constructive
Possibly, "arguments deteriorate?"
....<deletia>
>Cheers, differing sf fans
I only see ONE of you there.
>kella
Your staggering knowledge of literature, and your concern for detail
accuracy, are amply demonstrated by your entry. Cheers, yourself.
Jeffrey Kaplan
thusly:
>Yep. That's what Roddenberry *said* to get it on the air.
>Note that at least half a dozen of the scripts from those first couple
>of years were pretty damned phenomenal TV work....that couldn't have been
>done in a non-SF framework, because the network censors would have figured
>out what the writers were complaining about!
No doubt about it. The original Star Trek is a classic series.
>As soon as I see the veriest vestige of "SF" in "EARTH 2," I might
>consider it; but since the people who are MAKING "EARTH 2" keep putting
The SF in E2 is more subtle than in, say, Trek or B5. For instance,
they do have energy weapons, but I've only seen them fired once. It's
more of a "soft science" SF show, where the emphisis is on the people
and circumstances rather than on the technology. With Trek, you can't
get away from the tech.
>No, to date "VOYAGER" has been a series of RE-makes, not first-run.
<VBG>
By "first run" I was refering to the show currently being in
production, rather than reruns.
>You may call "EARTH 2".... "SF"... if you wish. I don't accede to
>your evaluation. "Composite of 'MELROSE PLACE,' 'WAGON TRAIN,' and
>'TWIN PEAKS,'" I might buy.
I've never seen those other shows. _Wagon Train_ was before my time,
and the other two never grabed my fancy.
>>Babylon 5
>Marginal; borderline SF with extremely competent and respectable
>people involved. Not true "SF" as long as "psi" and "FTL" are
I can undertand your hesitations over the psi aspect, even though it
has become more accepted in the SF field. But how can you hesitate
over FTL? That has been an integral part of SF, in one way or other,
since the original _Buck Rogers_.
>Don't count on it... at least one Paramount V.P. wants to cut losses
>and composite the two shows to cut production expenses.
You mean that someone at Paramount has had an attack of sanity?
>>Babylon 5 is shaky because people insist on slamming it simply because
>>it +isn't+ Trek.
>Not all that shaky; the ratings are fairly good, and it *looks* like a
>third year might be fairly likely.
Tell that to the station here in Boston that's carying it. We think
that they are trying to kill the show by shuffling it's scheduling and
no promos. BTW, the station is now owned by Paramount.
>Tell you what, any time there are more than two one-hour "SF" shows
>on the air that I *care* if I miss, I'll stipulate that we can afford
>to have crud like E2 tying up budget bucks and air slots. Until
Sounds like a deal to me.
ttul8r,
Jeffrey Kaplan | Internet: gor...@tiac.net |
Gharlane of Eddore
>
> Oh Gharlane, can't you just work on World Peace or something,
> and let people who like this show keep it around a little longer?
> I mean, it's not like anyone is forcing you to watch it!
To mis-quote one of my favorite Klingons, who was played by John Shuck,
"THERE CAN BE NO PEACE WHILE 'EARTH 2' and 'SEAQUEST' LIVE!"
Help stomp out air pollution! Call the "Moral Majority" and point out
that "EARTH 2" is showing *naked aliens!*
Call Sarah Brady and point out that "SEAQUEST" and "EARTH 2" both
glorify the use of Nasty Evil Guns!
Call the Republican National Party and point out that the environment
on "EARTH 2" is a planetary-sized socialist commensalism!
Call the Democrats and point out that the hero(ine) of "EARTH 2" is
a greedy capitalist who's messed up the lives of all around her,
and that NONE of the characters are paying taxes!
Let's get some *REAL* massed telephone campaigns going, here!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| __ __ |
| We are dreamers, shapers, singers and makers. / | / \ |
| We study the mysteries of laser and circuit, -|---+----+- |
| Crystal and scanner, holographic demons, | | | |
| And invocations of equations. |_/ \__/ |
| |
| These are the tools we employ. And we know... many things. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank McNeil
>>
>> [I realize, that you Gharlane understand a lot of things, but I'm not sure
>> you understand what Carol Flint and others were trying to do with "Earth 2"
>> --farnk.]
>>
>> Frank
>>
>>
>Why do you bother even arguing with him? He doesn't like the show.
"He doesn't like the show."
IMO, that's Gharlane's personal choice or Karma. Some of Gharlane's
responses deepen my understanding of "Earth 2", hence I become part of
the exchange we have.
I love reacting [goose-bump responses] to posts people write, that state
they love the show; and I also like reading posts that I learn from. I
don't expect to learn anything from Gharlane's opinions or hysterical
statements, so I ignore those parts of the Gharlane posts after being
stimulated (e.g., angered) by them.
>He is never going to like the show. Who cares.
Hi Julie,
Good question. I like to question things including "Earth 2" so I can
deepen my understanding of the current moment.
Gharlane is one of the few people that will discuss some parts of the
show (e.g., the fictional science), hence I respond to Gharlane's posts. At
first you may think Gharlane is just another pseudo-science, Science Fiction
fan/expert from an un-official Science Fiction writers union; at least
that's what I thought at first. Later I learned Gharlane is one of the few
posters that discusses the fictional science part of "Earth 2" and unlike
other flamers will answer the issues Gharlane is challenged on.
I don't care if Gharlane's OPINIONS differ from mine and I tend to ignore
hysterical rantings written by anyone who also provides needed information
or prompts me to think.
I think people think what I think about "Earth 2" is as ridiculous as what
Gharlane thinks about this piece of Art. For example, for me the last
episode explored the issues relating to the transition from a matriarchal to
a patriarchal society while discussing more deeper concepts. I don't think
Gharlane (or many other people) would call that a rational response from
watching last weeks episode. Hence I don't judge Gharlane because Gharlane
doesn't get it [since both of us may be full of BS]. We both have our own
Karma and opinions. Fortunately we can use language and logic to
communicate or simply enjoy arguing. IMO, the truth you understand is
better understood by focusing on its negation [i.e., everything Gharlane
writes :) ].
Frank
>Julie
Gharlane of Eddore
>
...<deletia>
>
> I can undertand your hesitations over the psi aspect, even though it
> has become more accepted in the SF field. But how can you hesitate
> over FTL? That has been an integral part of SF, in one way or other,
> since the original _Buck Rogers_.
>
What, precisely, do you mean by "the original 'BUCK ROGERS?'"
The *original* was a story called "ARMAGEDDON: 2419 A.D.," which appeared
in the August, 1928, issue of "AMAZING STORIES." The hero's name, by
the way, was "ANTHONY" Rogers, or "Tony;" "Buck" wasn't pinned on him
until the Dille syndicate comic strip began to appears.
The only prose sequel I know of, "THE AIRLORDS OF THE HAN," appeared
the following spring. (Philip Francis Nowlan, the writer, had invented
a new genre of SF, which would be mined for decades by the leading lights
of the field.)
.....and in "the original 'BUCK ROGERS,'" *NO ONE* left the planet,
even for a short trip inside the solar system. FTL was not an issue,
and certainly was not mentioned.
(A good deal of Nowlan's "tech" was a bit fantastic, bordering on
fantasy-physics even then, but it was at least internally consistent.)
Frank McNeil
>In <3lo402$i...@garuda.csulb.edu> beav...@csulb.edu (kella) writes:
>>
>...<deletia>
>>
>> I recognize that E2 does not have good writing. That's OK in my opinion.
>> I don't like the show because of it's finely crafted plot lines and deft
[deleted a bunch of non-information]
>....<deletia>
>>Cheers, differing sf fans
>I only see ONE of you there.
>>kella
>Your staggering knowledge of literature, and your concern for detail
>accuracy, are amply demonstrated by your entry. Cheers, yourself.
1. "Literature" is not the same thing as spelling and grammar.
2. Refuting the spelling and grammar usage is different than refuting
the points a person makes. Spelling and grammar can be seen as the
messenger and what the person wrote the message. Gharlane responded
to the messenger rather than the message.
Frank
P.S. I wish one of the many people that state that "Earth 2" has bad writing
would give some examples of that bad writing.
nkb...@mac.cc.macalstr.edu
> In article <3liukl$7...@news1.best.com> ftme...@best.com (Frank McNeil) writes:
>>
> ...<deletia>
>
>> Science Fiction shows also.
>
> I thought we were talking about "EARTH 2" here, not Science Fiction.
>
science fiction, gharlane. Don't you realize that not everyone shares your
strict definition and that this difference of opinion is not due to lack of
learning or taste?
>> Actually, I wish you would make suggestions to improve shows that you
>> regard as Science Fiction, so that more similar Science Fiction shows
>> will be created. [...Perhaps you do.]
>
> You must have missed my entry showing how a five-year story arc on
> "SLIDERS" could be made considerably more interesting and decent
> than the show is likely to be.....
Oh, so you think all science fiction shows need to be just like your favorite
one in order for them to be _good_ science fiction shows. I suppose in your
universe everyone has the same haircut too.
>
>> I'm not always offended by what I think of as "trash TV."
>> Frankly, I've never understood how SF shows like "B5" or the other shows
>> you mentioned above can appear other than trash when compared to shows
>> like "ER." I could care less if someone produces "Trash TV", when I'm
>> enjoying watching TV (e.g., watching "B5" or "Earth 2").
>
> Do you really mean you could care less, or did you mean you *couldn't*
> care less? Please think about what you were trying to say, and then
> explain which concept you really intended.
>
"I could care less" is an expression used to denote the same thing as "I
couldn't care less" by many people.
>> I go along with most of what you say until you talk about the fans.
>> IMO, the customer rules and any show that makes people feel good about
>> the good things is a good show in my book [whether I understand or
>> like/tolerate the show].
>
> Interesting. From my viewpoint, "EARTH 2" is the Ripple Wine of
> TV SkiFfy. I can understand why it might make people lacking in
> discernment or logical competence feel good, since the stories are
> so simplistic and fairy-tale childish that they're easily accessible
> to the most brain-damaged; but if you want children's fantasy shows
> that make people feel good, why not switch channels and find the
> latest of Shelly Duvall's products? Her stories are much more
> coherent and well-produced, very will written, and deal with the
> same kind of moralistic fantasy that the Three Stooges producing
> "EARTH 2" are trying for, and not attaining.... (...and "FAERIE
> TALE THEATER" had better acting, production, scripting, and FX
> on a vastly smaller budget, too.)
>
Oh, please. People have their own tastes. It's a fact of life, gharlane. Get
used to it. When someone does not share your tastes it is not necessarily a
sign of stupidity. Do you complain that others do not see why your favorite
flavor of ice-cream is the best in the world? I bet you do.
> ....<deletia>
>
> GOE> Let "EARTH 2" and "SEAQUEST" die the Real Death. They won't be missed.
>
>> You don't know what you are talking about, since many people say they love
>> "Earth 2." IMO shows like "Earth 2" and "My So-Called Life" will be
>
> Well, "many people" supported the Third Reich, too.
And the Third Reich had a nasty habit of silencing and denigrating all those
who did not agree with them. Do you have a mustache, Gharlane?
__
Nina K. Berg
"Happiness is mandatory."
July Siebecker
Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey
I thought the DC editors already destroyed it once!
Sloppily Executed Ideas Department: | Bill Higgins
I'm listed in the *Internet White Pages* | Fermilab
under "JOCKEY, Bill Higgins-- Beam." | Internet: hig...@fnal.fnal.gov
Look it up. | Bitnet: higgins@fnal
Frank McNeil
>In article <1995Apr4...@mac.cc.macalstr.edu>,
> <nkb...@mac.cc.macalstr.edu> wrote:
>>>> You don't know what you are talking about, since many people say they love
>>>> "Earth 2." IMO shows like "Earth 2" and "My So-Called Life" will be
>>> Well, "many people" supported the Third Reich, too.
[Sophistry example -- "mixing apples with oranges"]
>>And the Third Reich had a nasty habit of silencing and denigrating all those
>>who did not agree with them. Do you have a mustache, Gharlane?
The image that I think of is that of a "book burner."
>Let's get this straight. Gharlane has never advocated abrogating anybody's
>constitutional rights. In fact, he is exercising them, namely, his
>First Amendment free speech rights.
There are things we can do to hurt people that are not against the law.
Going out of my way to remove a TV show that I don't appreciate would be one
of those ways to hurt people without breaking the law.
There are times when I wish certain shows would be banned because they
encourage people to hurt other people. "Earth 2" is not that type of show.
>You on the other hand, would probably be perfectly happy if all the
>Earth 2 critics shut up, and not let the networks know how much they
>did not like the show.
That would make me happy for a number of reasons. One reason is that I
find bigotry disgusting.
I liked science fiction before I started reading the hatred some science
fiction people have towards TV shows they don't appreciate. [I'm just glad
this is a discussion about a TV show and not something important.]
>So who's being unamerican here?
[More Sophistry?]
I don't think being like an American was being discussed. Watching "Earth
2" has brought joy to some people. People that don't enjoy the show want to
remove that show from TV. Of course, they won't be arrested for helping to
remove the joy from "Earth 2" fans.
Frank
>>"Happiness is mandatory."
Gharlane of Eddore
>
> Since when did you become the deciding vote as to what is and what is not
> science fiction, gharlane. Don't you realize that not everyone shares your
> strict definition and that this difference of opinion is not due to lack of
> learning or taste?
True. Most of you lack the wit that Ghreat Ghrotty Ghu provided to any
random pebble, or you would realize that "EARTH 2" is an Abomination.
You'd also be bright enough not to waste lifespan reading my entries.
> Oh, so you think all science fiction shows need to be just like your
> favorite one in order for them to be _good_ science fiction shows.
> I suppose in your universe everyone has the same haircut too.
"Just like my favorite one?" I haven't *had* a "favorite SF show" since
"ROCKY JONES" went out of production.
> "I could care less" is an expression used to denote the same thing as
> "I couldn't care less" by many people.
"By many people?" ...Only the ones who have NO idea what they're saying.
> Oh, please. People have their own tastes. It's a fact of life, gharlane.
> Get used to it. When someone does not share your tastes it is not
> necessarily a sign of stupidity. Do you complain that others do not see
> why your favorite flavor of ice-cream is the best in the world?
> I bet you do.
*ICE CREAM*???? Sorry, honey, I don't *do* drugs.
GOE> Let "EARTH 2" and "SEAQUEST" die the Real Death. They won't be missed.
> And the Third Reich had a nasty habit of silencing and denigrating all those
> who did not agree with them. Do you have a mustache, Gharlane?
You're presuming that I'm still young enough to have HAIR, hon.
This assumption is not necessarily justified.
> Nina K. Berg
> "Happiness is mandatory."
Not while Klinton, Feinstein, Brady, Roberti, Roos, Hillary, and Chelsea
are still in office.
Ted McCoy
>>
>> ................................... IMO, the truth you understand is
>> better understood by focusing on its negation [i.e., everything Gharlane
>> writes :) ].
>>
>
>
>*BLFFFFFFFFFFDRRRDRRPPPDRRRR!*
>
> ^---------- apical interlabial unvoiced moist fricative.
>
>
>Proof: Think back. I *said* I liked Jessica Steen, remember?
>I was very clear about it... I think I said, "It's a pity to see
>an actress of Jessica Steen's experience and talent wasted on a
>piece of trash like this."
I remember you saying that. In fact, didn't you say that back before the
series had aired a single episode?
Ted
politico
I sat through the pilot of E2 and said, "Okay, seems like a decent start.
Pioneer attitude, Clancy Brown, no over heavy reliance on CGI."
Apparently, the show has taken a bad turn, they do that. Personally, I
feel the only watchable SF/Fantasy stuff out there is DS9, Voyager, and
Highlander, but then I'm sort of anal about quality effects, an evolving
storyline, actors who are pleasing to look at (B5 gets the doghouse award
for unattractivity, but I guess their hearts are in the right places),
create a sense of adventure and scope (Voyager), aand aren't afraid to
dwell on the darker side of human emotion without being completely defeatist.
Most of the poeple I know that like to bash shows like 'Trek are
overweight smelly gamerfuck cyberwannabe's that could get laid in a hotel
full of dead whores and waste their intelligence on head games. They like
shows like B5, where the creator of the show has written out virtually
the entire series, because they identify with the control freak attitude
that a great deal of gamers have. Where's the adventure in that? Where's
the challenge? Yes, it does wonders for continuity, but you can forget
about fan contributions to the storyline.
Anyway, there are a few good shows out there and A LOT of garbage
cluttering the airwaves with cheap effects and bozo scenarios, but what
are ya really gonna do about it? Mary Feller has spent a couple of grand
of her own money to try to get enough people interested in saving
Seaquest, but she's a rare exception to the rule of peanut gallery clap
trap that I've seen here. Everyone just wants their own little sim sense
rig so they can create and watch their little versions of reality (Hmm. I
think I'll put little spikes on Kirk's dogcollar while Spock reems him
out tonight), because we've gotten so afraid of dealing with one another
we would just explode if actually asked to think. I weep for what we are
becoming and I hope that this dose of reality will be enough to kill this
thread.
Mikey
(Gharlane of Eddore) wrote:
> True. Most of you lack the wit that Ghreat Ghrotty Ghu provided to any
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Is this your new handle?
I should get a cool SF handle, like Captain Video or Lord Jagged or something.
> random pebble, or you would realize that "EARTH 2" is an Abomination.
Well... SeaQuest is an Abomination. Earth 2 just sucks.
> You'd also be bright enough not to waste lifespan reading my entries.
No problem. I'm immortal. Intense oxygen therapy, ya know.
> "Just like my favorite one?" I haven't *had* a "favorite SF show" since
> "ROCKY JONES" went out of production.
Wasn't that Clutch Cargo's cousin?
> *ICE CREAM*???? Sorry, honey, I don't *do* drugs.
^^^^^
> You're presuming that I'm still young enough to have HAIR, hon.
> This assumption is not necessarily justified.
Hmmmm... Bald and cranky.... another clue......
> Not while Klinton, Feinstein, Brady, Roberti, Roos, Hillary, and Chelsea
> are still in office.
A man (?) after my heart. GO GOP IN 96!
Or failing that, a Libertarian in the white house might be a bit of fun.
Susan M. Kennedy
>
> "Susan M. Kennedy" <Sm...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> >mc...@math.ohio-state.edu (Ted McCoy) wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <3l77ks$k...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
> >> KissTheSky <kisst...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> [deleted]
>
> >I agree with this assesement, I really like the show, but it really
> >suffers from incredable lapses in writing. I seems like there are two
> >sets of writers, one set are geniuses and the other are idiots. I hope
> >this show survives and that will only happen if the good wins out
> >over the inane, but since this doesn't happen all that often in TV
> >these days, so I have my doubts.
>
> Could you be more specific? Which episodes were written by the geniuses?
>
> Here is a list of the episodes (along with the ratings I found on internet).
<paste-in FROM http://www.best.com/~ftmexpat/e2/e2-ratin.html>
>
> EARTH 2 RATINGS
Well that certainly put me on the spot! I'm afraid I'd be hard
pressed to give an episode by episode reveiw. What I really meant by
written by either genuises or idiots applies to each show. The concept
and character development shows signs or really good TV SF, but
then it stumbles and throws in something really stupid (or someone
really stupid like Morgan). I don't know yet whether its a good show
that just fails in the execution or a bad show with a lot of potential.
This is the way I've felt about it from the first episode and still
keep watching and enjoying it for the most part, but find myself
squirming, when they throw in something obviouly rediculous, like the
spiders or most of what Morgan does.
I can't remember the episodes by title, but I think these were some
of the better ones.
11/06/94 "First Contact" 15.6/23 (1)
11/13/94 "The Man Who Fell To Earth (Two)" 10.5/16 (1)
11/20/94 "Life Lessons" 8.8/14 (1)
11/27/94 "Promises, Promises" 9.7/14 (1)
12/04/94 "A Memory Play" 9.1/14 (1)
01/08/95 "The Enemy Within"
01/22/95 "Redemption"
Susan
John P. LaRocque
>lar...@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (John P. LaRocque) wrote:
>>Let's get this straight. Gharlane has never advocated abrogating anybody's
>>constitutional rights. In fact, he is exercising them, namely, his
>>First Amendment free speech rights.
> There are things we can do to hurt people that are not against the law.
>Going out of my way to remove a TV show that I don't appreciate would be one
>of those ways to hurt people without breaking the law.
Is it that much different from going out of your way to show support for
a particlular show? It's not censorship to offer your advice to people,
especially if it comes without a price.
>>You on the other hand, would probably be perfectly happy if all the
>>Earth 2 critics shut up, and not let the networks know how much they
>>did not like the show.
> That would make me happy for a number of reasons. One reason is that I
>find bigotry disgusting.
Expressing your opinion is bigotry?
What a strange world? We have Earth 2 supporters who would be perfectly
happy if criticism of that show were stifled, and critics of Earth 2
are labelled Nazis for expressing themselves. Welcome to the 90's.
> I liked science fiction before I started reading the hatred some science
>fiction people have towards TV shows they don't appreciate. [I'm just glad
>this is a discussion about a TV show and not something important.]
That depends on what "science fiction" is, and who defines it. A lot of
television shows have used science fiction themes, but few of them I
think can be held to a strict definition of "science fiction". For example,
Quantum Leap had a time travel element, but it was used as a plot device
and little else.
>Frank
--
|----\___ John P. LaRocque (lar...@gaul.csd.uwo.ca)
********]|-----|___\__________
********]|_______>___________/ "There are those who believe
|_____ / that life here began out there..."
Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey
> True. Most of you lack the wit that Ghreat Ghrotty Ghu provided to any
I stopped watching *Earth 2* after the second episode, becaus I'd lost
interest. But Gharlane has just about convinced me that I need to
resume. Could it *possibly* be as thoroughly wretched as he claims?
"You see, all matter is composed of | Bill Higgins
the same basic components-- | Fermilab
atoms, ions, neurons, and so forth!" | Internet: hig...@fnal.fnal.gov
--top scientist Reed Richards in the | Bitnet: higgins@fnal
pathetic animated *Fantastic Four*
David G. Homerick
: P.S. I wish one of the many people that state that "Earth 2" has bad writing
: would give some examples of that bad writing.
OK, here goes.
There was an episode near the start of the series (I haven't seen any of
the later episodes, for obvious reasons) where the colonists are running
out of water. Danzinger and Madame Leader (I forget her name) get
stranded in the desert while trying to find water, and Danzinger nearly
dies of thirst.
They find two means of obtaining water. One is by digging in the sand at
the bottom of a ravine and waiting for water to pool in the hole. The
other is by squeezing a strange alien desert plant which just happens to
look exactly like the common prickly pear cactus. Please note that the
first method requires a lot of time waiting for the holes to fill before
getting the water and the second requires gathering large amounts of cactus.
The episode ends with a water fight.
Now, why would anyone in danger of running out of water turn around and
*waste* it simply because they found another source, especially when
getting water from that source takes so much time and effort? Remember
that these people are not supposed to be a troop of Gumps, but grown,
responsible, *intelligent* adults.
Example #2. Morgan, through general paranoia and idiocy, gets his
beautiful, loving, forgiving, practically-perfect-in-every-way wife upset
at him. At the end of the episode, Morgan has a conversation with an
image of Bess' dead father via his VR goggles. Bess happens upon him
while he is talking, in effect, to himself.
Pausing the action here, I'm going to bring up an old narrative cliche'.
A young man is too shy to approach his beloved, and, to stiffen his
resolve, practices what he will say to her by telling it to a bush, or a
tree, or his dog rover. The beloved happens upon this earnest young man,
and the sight, in the words of _Bloom County_'s Binkley, "charms the
panties off her."
Back on _Earth 2_, Bess beholds Morgan going on about how wonderful she
is, and, panties duly charmed off, kneels to remove his goggles. Morgan
is surprised to see her, and happy that she has forgiven him, and Bess is
happy that Morgan really, truly loves her, and everyone is happy except
for me. I am grinding my teeth.
I don't believe I've watched _Earth 2_ since.
David Homerick sac5...@saclink.csus.edu
Kyle Haight
>Okay folks, time for a heavyweight to join the fray and spank some tush.
Indeed. I wish there were one. But until there is, I'll have to
settle for arguing with you.
> [Claim that Voyager creates a sense of adventure and scope elided.]
I find this baffling. I've watched every episode of Voyager to date,
based on the theory that I should give a show 8 or 10 episodes before
passing major judgement on it, and I haven't seen anything like a
sense of adventure or scope. I've heard lots of bad dialogue, winced
at the paper-thin character development and pondered how much better
TNG did most of the plots, but I missed the sense of adventure and
scope.
>Most of the poeple I know that like to bash shows like 'Trek are
>overweight smelly gamerfuck cyberwannabe's that could get laid in a hotel
>full of dead whores and waste their intelligence on head games.
I like to bash Trek shows, when they're of poor quality. I decided
some time ago that I'm not a fan of Trek, I'm a fan of particular Trek
episodes. I think "The Best of Both Worlds, part I" was one of the
most dramatic pieces of SF television I've ever seen. The only scene
I know of that rivals the power of its ending is the final scene of
Blake's 7. Sadly, most of Trek does not make it anywhere near this
standard.
For the record, even though I like to point out the myriad flaws in
Trek, I am not overweight. I bathe daily. I don't game actively. I
don't know what you mean by "cyberwannabe," so I can't speak to that
point. And I get laid regularly, without having to pay for it.
Beyond that, I'll just point out that ad hominem is still a logical
fallacy. Oh, and I think you meant to say "...could _not_ get
laid..."
>They like
>shows like B5, where the creator of the show has written out virtually
>the entire series, because they identify with the control freak attitude
>that a great deal of gamers have.
I like B5. The creator has written out the outline for the entire
series, which is not the same as having written out the entire series.
My reasons for liking B5 have nothing to do with control issues. I
like B5 because the writing and overall plotting is of such a high
caliber. Elements resonate across episodes in almost literary ways
that Trek never even attempted to match.
I'm frankly puzzled by your assertion that a control freak would be
attracted to B5 because nobody else can contribute to it. Wouldn't
that be precisely the thing that would infuriate a control freak? The
inability to impose his or her own will on someone else's product?
For that matter, having written out the outline of the series in no
way stifles fan creativity. My girlfriend and I are currently working
on a B5 fan story. It doesn't gibe perfectly with observed series
continuity after a certain point in time. So what? We still get to
play in JMS' universe.
>I weep for what we are
>becoming and I hope that this dose of reality will be enough to kill this
>thread.
I am also saddened by what we are becoming. Unfortunately, you are a
prime example. I see very little reality in what you posted, and
quite a lot of the elevation of personal prejudice into
pseudo-objective standards of judgement.
Kyle Haight kha...@netcom.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This post was about war, racism, intolerance, | No it wasn't! The
heroism, justice, and the inevitable triumph | author got millions in
of good over evil. | Frungy endorsements!
Maya Kaathryn Bohnhoff
> ....And the problem with schlock SkiFfy shows like "E-2" is that they
> generate an environment that effectively precludes availability of the
> the stuff *I* want to see.
So what is it you want to see? More hardware wars? More Video Toaster
effects? Does every SF TV show have to be set on a starship somewhere?
We've got enough of those; I find E2 incredibly refreshing. I find writers
who think about details like how people raised in a tin can would react
to rain, sun, nightfall, extremes in temperature and generally not being able
to control their environment.
The characters in this show are more like real honest to warts human beings
than anything I've seen on other SF shows. AS much as I enjoy the Trek
series' and B5, I am constantly aware that the characters are not as well-
developed or as complex as I'd like to see them. They often get jerked
around by the writers and suffer (although less and less) from episodism
i.e. we learned a lesson this week, but next week everything will be back
to square one. Watching Morgan metamorphose gradually into a semi-
human being who still has horrible lapses of conscience has been very
satisfying.
I realize there need to be shows out there for folks who need to have
every plot development spelled out for them in neon, but I'd like to see
E2 survive just because it's different and satisfies a completely different
hunger -- planetary exploration, first contact, discovery at a human level --
all of those things are often missing from the far future hardware oriented
shows.
I'd like to remind everyone, too, how long it took STNG to get its
character chemistry together. The folks in Earth 2 seem to have come
with chemistry installed already. (Or maybe the Danziger character
just supplies enough chemistry for the whole cast.)
While I agree that SeaQuest should get the heck out of the SF
ghetto, the very fact that you equate the two programs tells me
your judgement is questionable. From an SF writer's viewpoint,
E2 is science fiction. I haven't yet figured out what SeaQuest is
supposed to be, but I'll simply register my dismay by NOT WATCHING.
I would miss Earth 2 very much if it were cancelled. If you stopped
complaining, however, I would definitely not *miss; that. And I can
say that because of the first amendment.
Most sincerely,
Maya Kaathryn Bohnhoff
Member SFWA
+----------------------------------------+
| Maya Kaathryn Bohnhoff syn...@oro.net |
+----------------------------------------+
| "The beginning of all things is the |
| knowlege of God." - Baha'u'llah |
+----------------------------------------+
Maya Kaathryn Bohnhoff
> consider it; but since the people who are MAKING "EARTH 2" keep putting
> 'STAR TREK,'" why should I take them any more seriously than their work
> justifies? I have yet to see anything from them that constitutes
> good work for *any* dramatic milieu....
I'll admit that shying away from the SF label (which X-Files producer Chris
Carter is also guilty of) is irritating. It was refreshing to hear Siddig el Fadil
and Garrett WAng admit they were life-long Trek fen. BUT, look, I write
science fiction professionally and I can't understand what you're talking
about when you say it has not the "veriest vestige" of SF. This is gosh
wow sense of wonder science fiction the way Bradbury and God intended.
SF isn't about technology and hardware. It's about the transformation of
human beings and what those human beings do with the technology (or
lack thereof) that they have. Earth 2 is first contact
SF, one of the most venerable lines. There is room for the metaphysical in
SF -- Bradbury put it there, CArd puts it there and LeGuin and Bear and
any number of the best SF writers on the planet. It matters to me not at
all at this point, that the producers of the show are so afraid of existing in
a ghetto that they won't admit the show is SF. Every episode is at very
least speculative fiction.
+----------------------------------------+
| Maya Kaathryn Bohnhoff syn...@oro.net |
Member SFWA
jbr...@bga.com
>
>
>
>>
>> [I realize, that you Gharlane understand a lot of things, but I'm not sure
>> you understand what Carol Flint and others were trying to do with "Earth 2"
>> --farnk.]
>>
>> Frank
>>
>>
>
>
>Why do you bother even arguing with him? He doesn't like the show.
>
>
>
Look, hey nothing personal, but Earth2, was a good idea, but the
kid not being able to live in the bacteria free enviroment, just plain
turned me off. The show has gotten even dumber since, note that they have
no more ads on tv anymore.
Mikey
Michael Seaton
WARNING
GODWIN'S FOURTH LAW IN EFFECT
TERMINATION OF THREAD NOW IMMINENT
**********************************
Jan Yarnot
I was amazed at how quickly it came in: first posting, wasn't it?
(For the clueless, Godwin's Law states that just before the death of a
thread, someone mentions Nazis. Usually, though, a lot of other stuff
has been said first.)
--
Jan Yarnot, net.granny, RABbabe | How can I believe there's a butterfly
jya...@netcom.com | inside you or me when all I see is a
Proud owner: Animaniacs jacket! | fuzzy worm? --Trina Paulus
*** Posted from the enormous T-Rex on the Yarnot kitchen counter ***
Gharlane of Eddore
>**********************************
> WARNING
> GODWIN'S FOURTH LAW IN EFFECT
>TERMINATION OF THREAD NOW IMMINENT
>**********************************
Hey, Mike, I *tried*, but the bimbos just kept on arguing........
Tom Salyers
In a previous article, poli...@io.com (politico) says:
[a lot of blather deriding most fans as "smelly overweight gamerfuck cyber-
wannabes" deleted with distaste]
> They like shows like B5, where the creator of the show has written out
>virtually the entire series, because they identify with the control freak
>attitude that a great deal of gamers have.
*bzzt!* Thanks for playing, politico. The reason we like B5 is because it's
a good story well told, not because we admire Straczynski's supposed iron
grip over things....
> Where's the adventure in that? Where's the challenge?
What challenge are you looking for?
> Yes, it does wonders for continuity, but you can forget about fan
>contributions to the storyline.
Ah. You just answered my question. You're foaming at the mouth because
someone has the nerve to create his own story in advance and not let you
make your own meager contributions.
I wouldn't *want* fan contributions to B5's storyline--it stands on its own,
and any fan additions would destroy continuity and cheapen a good show.
Besides, have you read a fanzine lately? Ninety-nine percent of "fan
contributions" are purest dreck.......
--
Tom Salyers "Now is the Windows of our disk contents
IRCnick: Aqualung made glorious SimEarth by this Sun of Zork."
Denver, CO ---Richard v3.0
Gharlane of Eddore
>
>> ghar...@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu (Gharlane of Eddore) writes:
>> generate an environment that effectively precludes availability of the
>> the stuff *I* want to see.
>
> So what is it you want to see?
Look at any SF *OR* Fantasy by Poul Anderson.
> More hardware wars?
Stop being insulting; SF does *not* equate to FX.
> More Video Toaster effects?
Definitely. As folks like John Winston and Ron Thornton have demonstrated,
various approaches to computer graphics allow the use of decent FX without
impoverishing the production budget.
> Does every SF TV show have to be set on a starship somewhere?
I didn't say this, and your imputation that I did is the act of a snot.
> We've got enough of those; I find E2 incredibly refreshing. I find writers
> who think about details like how people raised in a tin can would react
> to rain, sun, nightfall, extremes in temperature and generally not being able
> to control their environment.
OLD. Unworthy of air time, except as a subliminal component of the
characters' behavior --- but these writers aren't good enough to handle that.
> The characters in this show are more like real honest to warts human beings
> than anything I've seen on other SF shows. AS much as I enjoy the Trek
Boy, you most know some really subcompetent losers with bad self-image
problems. REAL people aren't like that.
> series' and B5, I am constantly aware that the characters are not as well-
A "professional writer" who confuses a plural with a possessive?
> developed or as complex as I'd like to see them. They often get jerked
> around by the writers and suffer (although less and less) from episodism
Yeah, we've noticed this. Unfortunately, the "jerking around" is neither
coherent nor developed.
> i.e. we learned a lesson this week, but next week everything will be back
> to square one. Watching Morgan metamorphose gradually into a semi-
> human being who still has horrible lapses of conscience has been very
> satisfying.
Oh, riiiiiiight. Long, tedious disintegration of a man's mind is "satisfying."
> I realize there need to be shows out there for folks who need to have
> every plot development spelled out for them in neon, but I'd like to see
Neither I nor any other writer on this topic have made any assertions
on this subject.
> E2 survive just because it's different and satisfies a completely different
They're not *quite* at the Talking Carrot Who's Going To Rule The World
level yet, but they're heading for it. WHy bother with them.....
> hunger -- planetary exploration, first contact, discovery at a human level --
> all of those things are often missing from the far future hardware oriented
> shows.
Apparently, you have a real hard time with what you refer to as "Hardware."
This is the kind of professional incompetence that skewed the entire field
over toward Elves and Gnomes and Fairies in the sixties, because writing
Fantasy is *EASIER*. (You don't have to know anything.)
> I'd like to remind everyone, too, how long it took STNG to get its
> character chemistry together. The folks in Earth 2 seem to have come
> with chemistry installed already. (Or maybe the Danziger character
> just supplies enough chemistry for the whole cast.)
The implication here is that "ST:TNG" is SF. It's not. It's a
Fantasy Franchise, and its management and production by NON-SF people
has leaked through to the spin-offs as well.
> While I agree that SeaQuest should get the heck out of the SF
> ghetto, the very fact that you equate the two programs tells me
> your judgement is questionable. From an SF writer's viewpoint,
> E2 is science fiction. I haven't yet figured out what SeaQuest is
> supposed to be, but I'll simply register my dismay by NOT WATCHING.
"From an SF writer's viewpoint?" Hon, I sold my first SF to a major
magazine over 30 years ago. I'm no one important, and don't earn
my living by writing, but I suspect I was writing for paid publication
before you were born. I've read some of your stuff, and you write a
good stick; but your support of "EARTH 2," unless you're cruising for a
script assignment (I think Art Sellings got over 15K for that stupid
"worm bullet" script, which would explain your brown-nosing) is one
of the most hilarious things I've seen on this topic.
At my last SF convention, I spent some time in a suite with a large number
of your fellow "SFWA" people, and the discussion of "EARTH 2" was very
amusing; it had *no* supporters in the room, even among the folks with
only English majors, who write nothing but Silly Fantasy.
> I would miss Earth 2 very much if it were cancelled. If you stopped
> complaining, however, I would definitely not *miss; that. And I can
> say that because of the first amendment.
No, you can say that because you're silly enough to think your opinion
in the matter is important. There *are* a few "EARTH 2" fans on the
Net, but the "EARTH 2" haters seem to be in the vast majority.
Fortunately, the ratings may well solve the problem, since the show
doesn't look real good, and its production budget is far too high for
the returns it's earning.
Of course, they MIGHT just move it to Florida, the way they did "SEAQUEST."
*snicker*
> Most sincerely,
> Maya Kaathryn Bohnhoff
> Member SFWA
You're still bragging about being a member of an organization that lets
in the likes of L. Ron Hubbard?
Frank McNeil
>In article <3lu06q$b...@news1.best.com>, Frank McNeil <ftme...@best.com> wrote:
>>lar...@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (John P. LaRocque) wrote:
>>>Let's get this straight. Gharlane has never advocated abrogating anybody's
>>>constitutional rights. In fact, he is exercising them, namely, his
>>>First Amendment free speech rights.
>> There are things we can do to hurt people that are not against the law.
>>Going out of my way to remove a TV show that I don't appreciate would be one
>>of those ways to hurt people without breaking the law.
>Is it that much different from going out of your way to show support for
>a particlular show? It's not censorship to offer your advice to people,
>especially if it comes without a price.
I agree, but the "criticism" some are offering is simply a judgment that
the show isn't decent Science Fiction and should THEREFORE not be aired. In
other words some people use a fixed opinion to judge the show. Then they
act in an intolerant maner. [Hence, I used the word bigot.]
Gharlane and a couple other people act as if they are part of campaign to
remove shows with "Science Fiction Themes", that aren't scientifically sound
(e.g., people can't swim through rock) from the TV. Gharlane, however,
does more than simply debate issues.
...I'm getting tired of this nonsense---I'll finish the post though.
Actually, I think I mentioned the word bigot because of Gharlane helps
make sure more literate posters that watch "Earth 2" don't add any comments
to Usenet. There are a number of people who have the same opinion of the
show I had after the first 3 episodes [we didn't like it]. I'm not a bigot
and neither are people who simply don't like the show.
I now Love "Earth 2" [after the "Water" episode], so I'll illustrate the
point I'm trying to make with another genre.
After watching "The NEWZ" I've never been able to _TOLERATE_ the so-called
humor of "Saturday Night Live"!!! However I don't fixate on the fact that
"Saturday Night Live" doesn't have brilliant writing <note 1>. Likewise
many people that don't like "Earth 2" because they have a vision of what
Science Fiction could be, don't fixate on "Earth 2." They just don't watch
the show and occasionally give reasons why they don't watch it.
>>>You on the other hand, would probably be perfectly happy if all the
>>>Earth 2 critics shut up, and not let the networks know how much they
>>>did not like the show.
I don't think Gharlane is only a critic and I was responding to Gharlane's
judgments. Criticisms is good; we can all learn from criticism.
>> That would make me happy for a number of reasons. One reason is that I
>>find bigotry disgusting.
>Expressing your opinion is bigotry?
Of course not.
Also note the following is a logical fallacy.
P -->Q
Q
Therefore P
[Let P = "If X express a bigoted opinion, then X has engaged in bigotry"
Q = "X expresses an opinion"]
Or stating the fallacy another way:
For all x: There Exists at least one B(x)
Therefore For all x: IF x Exists then that x is B(x)
>What a strange world? We have Earth 2 supporters who would be perfectly
>happy if criticism of that show were stifled, and critics of Earth 2
>are labelled Nazis for expressing themselves. Welcome to the 90's.
I don't think anyone called the "Earth 2" critics that act like bigots
Nazis. A person did point out a similarity in the polemics that Nazis use
and the polemics that Gharlane uses.
>> I liked science fiction before I started reading the hatred some science
>>fiction people have towards TV shows they don't appreciate. [I'm just glad
>>this is a discussion about a TV show and not something important.]
>That depends on what "science fiction" is, and who defines it. A lot of
>television shows have used science fiction themes, but few of them I
>think can be held to a strict definition of "science fiction". For example,
>Quantum Leap had a time travel element, but it was used as a plot device
>and little else.
"Who defines it"? Don't you get it!! Definitions are the product of the
entrails of creation.
It is the experience [in "the moment"] that counts. When some people
experience an "Earth 2" episode like "The Water" their hearts jump for Joy
at the end of the show as the characters have their water fight <note 2>.
The fact that the show is or is not "Science Fiction" is irrelevant. The
fact that some people would like to deny them that joy is. [Especially,
when it doesn't cost them anything.]
Frank
Note 1: An example of the brilliant writing of "The NEWZ" I remember is the
one where:
A person is demanding smaller and smaller slices of meat until BOOM!!!
A mushroom cloud from an Atomic Blast appears on the screen. :)
Note 2: The episode "Water" was written by Carol Flint and directed by Joe
Napolitano and I am grateful to both of them for their work of Art.
Frank McNeil
>In <3ls6s9$1...@news1.best.com> ftme...@best.com (Frank McNeil) writes:
>>
>....<deletia>
>>
>> P.S. I wish one of the many people that state that "Earth 2" has bad
>> writing would give some examples of that bad writing.
>>
>Sure. "Worm bullets." "Bone-healer vaccine." "22 light years."
>"'THE' G-8 system." "Virtual Reality." "Pineal gland."
>"Frozen Bad Grendler." "Chip-implanted used-to-be-evil cyborg."
>"Stupid kid." "Stupid leader." "Silicon solar cells."
Oh! I thought you and others were talking about writing and dialogue when
you referred to bad writing.
>Or did you want me to discuss the dialog and the zero-dimensional
>character development and the labored, idiotic character interaction
Yes. Why would I ask you to explain about anything related to the
meaning of an "Earth 2" script? You haven't provided any insights into the
meaning of an episode in the past. We all have our limits and our
strengths.
>that wouldn't be taking place among adults with I.Q.'s over 90?
This is sick. Bad writing is bad writing. I should know; enough people
have corrected my writing. The fact that you haven't pointed any examples
just means, that either you can't, or you haven't had reason to write down
or remember your observations.
>Going by the dialog and camera moves, they're probably doing less than
>fifty pages per "one-hour" script. (The rest gets filled with mystical
>"Twin Peaks" music and "atmosphere" shots.) (Note that actual program
>material is usually less then 40 minutes per show, and they seem to
>have the attitude that all of the contractees have to show up in every
>show; this makes it impossible to focus on a character much past the
>"who-gets-laid" or "who's-having-a-headache-from-disease/implanted chip/
>alien bad dreams" level.)
Speak for yourself, not those that love and appreciate the show.
>Post a copy of a script, and I'll re-write it for you, on line, to
>show how it *chould* be done, were any of their writing staff competent
>to perform at a level above that of a sub-moronic lobotomized garden
>slug.....
Get serious, how am I going to get a script; and after the post you've
just written, why should I believe you could show us examples of bad
writing. Gharlane, you are simply incapable of understanding what you
consider a bunch of nonsense.
I don't want you to rewrite something you don't understand in the first
place.
When I watch the reruns of the earlier (good) episodes, I want to spot the
bad writing. The fact that no-one has pointed out bad writing doesn't mean
it isn't there.
Frank
Wilbur S. Peng
>> So what is it you want to see?
>Look at any SF *OR* Fantasy by Poul Anderson.
Hah. Most Poul Anderson is pretty mediocre, IMGCO. Just shows
you that TASTES VARY, a concept which your several billion neurons
can't seem to adequately formulate.
You've single-handedly convinced me of the requirement for
rec.arts.sf.tv.advocacy newsgroup to direct the various rantings
and ravings bashing various shows. With your periodic trotting out of
various clay pigeons (e.g. English majors), non-sequiturs, vague,
generalized pronouncements of opinion as fact, nitpicking grammar
and spelling to belittle the intelligence of other posters, impugning of
personal (and unknowable) motives, you'd be a leading figure on the
advocacy group. There, you could rant to your hearts content
instead of clogging up the newsgroup here.
The real reason why you have an active _grudge_ against E2
is because you don't like the producers/writers stated attitudes
and can't seem to look beyond that. That's poor critical judgement.
Just what is it that you do for a living?
Frank McNeil
>In article <3luv77$t...@ag.oro.net>,
>Maya Kaathryn Bohnhoff <syn...@oro.net> wrote:
>>We've got enough of those; I find E2 incredibly refreshing. I find writers
>>who think about details like how people raised in a tin can would react
>>to rain, sun, nightfall, extremes in temperature and generally not being able
>>to control their environment.
>Too bad they didn't invite Gilligan.
>>I'd like to remind everyone, too, how long it took STNG to get its
>>character chemistry together.
>It took them five years to get people to forget just how bad the
>first season actually was. And the kept going for two more!
>>| Maya Kaathryn Bohnhoff syn...@oro.net |
>>| "The beginning of all things is the |
>>| knowlege of God." - Baha'u'llah |
> ^
> insert d here
>Forgot that spell checker, eh?
Are all the people that object to "Earth 2" fixated on spelling? Is that a
clue to why they don't understand the show?
I've got to run now... I'm going to jog to a book store to see what Maya
Kaathryn Bohnhoff has written.
I really have appreciated reading her articulate posts. I know that some
sophisticated people like "Earth 2." However, until Ms. Bohnhoff stated
her observations, I assumed "Earth 2" was poorly written and I was too
ignorant [or mesmerized by the Art] to notice it.
Frank
Mikey
(Gharlane of Eddore) wrote:
> Hey, Mike, I *tried*, but the bimbos just kept on arguing........
Bimbos? WHERE!!!!!!!??????
:-) :-) :-)
nkb...@mac.cc.macalstr.edu
> In article <1995Apr4...@mac.cc.macalstr.edu>,
> <nkb...@mac.cc.macalstr.edu> wrote:
>
>>>> You don't know what you are talking about, since many people say they love
>>>> "Earth 2." IMO shows like "Earth 2" and "My So-Called Life" will be
>
>>> Well, "many people" supported the Third Reich, too.
>
>>who did not agree with them. Do you have a mustache, Gharlane?
>
> constitutional rights. In fact, he is exercising them, namely, his
> First Amendment free speech rights.
>
> Earth 2 critics shut up, and not let the networks know how much they
> did not like the show.
>
>
Actually, I don't mind gharlane when all he is doing is helpful criticism.
Criticism is a good thing and I often find his criticism particularly
insightful (though sometimes inciteful). What I was referring to here was his
continual assertions that all that he calls "bad SkiFfy" (that right,
gharlane?) should be pulled from the airwaves and that the people who watch
such shows as Earth 2 are ignoramuses. If you read the rest of my post, you
would have seen that what I was angry at was his lack of respect for other
opinions, not his criticisms in and of themselves. I'm glad you called me on
that last statement. I would have been worried if someone hadn't.
__
nkb...@mac.cc.macalstr.edu
> In <1995Apr4...@mac.cc.macalstr.edu> nkb...@mac.cc.macalstr.edu writes:
>>
>> Since when did you become the deciding vote as to what is and what is not
>> science fiction, gharlane. Don't you realize that not everyone shares your
>> strict definition and that this difference of opinion is not due to lack of
>> learning or taste?
>
> random pebble, or you would realize that "EARTH 2" is an Abomination.
>
>> Oh, please. People have their own tastes. It's a fact of life, gharlane.
>> Get used to it. When someone does not share your tastes it is not
>> necessarily a sign of stupidity. Do you complain that others do not see
>> why your favorite flavor of ice-cream is the best in the world?
>> I bet you do.
>
>
>
> GOE> Let "EARTH 2" and "SEAQUEST" die the Real Death. They won't be missed.
>
>> who did not agree with them. Do you have a mustache, Gharlane?
>
> This assumption is not necessarily justified.
>
>> Nina K. Berg
>> "Happiness is mandatory."
>
>
Jim_...@transarc.com
> That would make me happy for a number of reasons. One reason is that I
> find bigotry disgusting.
Is not liking a TV show bigotry?
>
> I liked science fiction before I started reading the hatred some science
> fiction people have towards TV shows they don't appreciate. [I'm just glad
> this is a discussion about a TV show and not something important.]
Aren't there things you disliked? Don't you express your opinions on
what you dislike?
> 2" has brought joy to some people. People that don't enjoy the show want to
> remove that show from TV. Of course, they won't be arrested for helping to
> remove the joy from "Earth 2" fans.
This reminds me of some arguments in the book world. I really wish I
could convince some good bookstores to quit carrying quite so many
poorly written romances and mush fantasies. I'm wouldn't do this to
somehow hurt folks who take joy in such things but because there is
only a limited amount of shelf space in any bookstore, and I'd rather
have it go toward good stuff and not random junk. The same applies to
TV. There is a limited amount of bandwidht. If some folks had there
way, most of it would be filled with so-so SF (or worse). I'd rather
see bad shows die and potentially make room for good shows.
As a side note, Earth 2 bothers me less than some others. Every month
or two I tune in to see what's going on, since it actually seems to
have some potential (unlike, say, SeaQuest, which should be put out of
it's misery as soon as possible).
******************************************************************
Jim Mann jm...@transarc.com
Transarc Corporation
The Gulf Tower, 707 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 338-4442
WWW Homepage: http://www.transarc.com/~jmann/Home.html
Frank McNeil
>01/08/95 "The Enemy Within"
>01/22/95 "Redemption"
>Susan
Thanks,
When I asked for examples of bad writing I didn't understand that a number
of people consider bogus concepts as examples of bad writing. I was more
interested in understanding what the bad dialogue was.
Frank
Justin McElhanon
> fiction", the rest of us have to accept this label just because the
> majority of the fans and critics feel that way.
>
> Uh uh. This is EXACTLY why most published "SF" today (and most tv
> shows) doesn't really qualify as science fiction. Today's "SF"
> market is glutted with corporate properties (Star Dreeck, gaming),
> fantasy and licensed works of other people's character's and ideas.
> "Science fiction" is in its death throes...
>
I was just curoius, are you complaining about the show being called
SF or about the writing of the show? I was just curiuos as to why it matters
many uneducated people call Animaniacs a cartoon instead of an Animated
series, however, it's still by far one of the best shows on T.V. does
terms really matter that much to you, after all there are many word out thier
that mean differnt things to different people, saying government implies,
congress,prez,city council, state gov,state leg,etc., or to some it could be
a boss instructing people. One should accept their own def and if they want
to consider E2 a fantasy drama show, or a scifi show is their room for both
views?
goggans, debi or grant
Once upon a time, it was said, by Frank, I think:
>>> You don't know what you are talking about, since many people say they love
>>> "Earth 2." IMO shows like "Earth 2" and "My So-Called Life" will be
>
and Gharlane replied:
>>Well, "many people" supported the Third Reich, too.
>
and there were at least three responses like:
> I don't think this comparison is apt, since neither "Earth 2" or "My
>So-Called Life" encourages the slaughter of human beings, as did some of the
>Third Reich leadership.
Which prompts me to ask:
For heaven's sake, am I the only one who understood Gharlane's point?
Would it make it any more lucid to think along the lines of "many people
used to think the Earth is flat," or "many people thought hydrogen-
filled balloons were perfectly safe" or "many people thought that
the Luisitania wouldn't get torpedoed" or "many people thought the
Yugo would sell hugely?"
The equation was *not* many people are fans of Earth 2 and therefore
Nazis, it was, many people are fans of Earth 2 and many people were
fans of a bloody stupid idea. My mom always used to say "If 40,000
people jumped off a cliff, does that mean you should, too?" Same
principle.
Astonishing how the same few "Earth 2" fans who will bore you senseless
with talk of the metaphysical plane and the Jungian archetypes of the
spiders on the planet are completely incapable of following a simple
piece of logic.
>.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* "Egads! It's a robot! * * "Guinness is good *
* A robot Plastic Man!" * Deep in Athens, Grant. * for you." *
* --Eel O'Brian * * -Dorothy L Sayers *
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* "Buzz is the best person I've ever met. *
* He has a beer in one hand and he's friendly." *
* --Ego Hat *
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
goggans, debi or grant
> So what if Earth 2 has "simplistic" storylines. A story doesn't
>have to be complicated in order to be good. That's ridiculous. Earth 2
>has decent writing. They don't ignore previous episodes as if they never
>happened, ala Star Trek. The characters are true to the nature that
>they set from the beginning.
> Arguing that it is terrible just because the plot isn't
>complicated is stupid. And if it doesn't fit within some person's
>rigid views of what "Science Fiction" is, so what?! It's entertaining,
>and really, that's all that counts.
Actually, I think it's the other way around. "Earth 2" has terribly
complicated plots, the one about the radiation virus that causes brain
cancer but can be cured by Grendler spit a case in point. It's the
writing that's the problem. The characters are two-dimensional stocks
that fit set, specific goals. The android who does X, the brave woman in
charge who does Y...it's a far cry from "Lost in Space," a piece of
garbage but a far superior show. You had characters there, and they were
developed fully, and successfully, not very long after waking up in the
first episode. People didn't whine "oh, they're still working on the
character development" after what? 16 episodes? in those days...
>
>KF
Gharlane of Eddore
< a lot of patronizing stuff aimed at my old age, curmudgeonly attitude,
and generally snotty air >
I just found a file of the notes I typed while watching the "EARTH 2"
pilot film for an article I wrote a while back.... I'm only putting in
the first half of it here, since the second half is primarily a diatribe
concerning the practice of overpaying incompetents.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
In "TV GUIDE" dated October 15, 1994, Glen Kenny's article contained
the following text in an article on "EARTH 2." (The article is titled
"LOST IN SPACE, AGAIN.")
An excerpt from Mr. Kenny's article:
| "What may give 'EARTH 2' an unusual edge is the fact that its three
| executive producers and co-creators--- Michael Duggan, Carol Flint,
| and Mark Levin--- have virtually no sci-fi experience (one, I won't
| say which, even admits to never having seen an episode of 'STAR TREK'
| --- from any generation.) Duggan was a writer on 'SAINT ELSEWHERE,'
| and supervising producer on 'LAW & ORDER;' Flint, a writer, story
| editor, and producer on 'CHINA BEACH,' and Levin was a writer/
| producer on 'THE WONDER YEARS.'
| "Duggan anticipates my first question: '"What the hell are we doing
| here?" That was *our* reaction when we were approached for the series.
| But we began to embrace the idea that our lack of background might be
| *good*. Since we don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of the genre,
| we didn't have the tried-and-true ideas to fall back on.'
| "'We're making the kind of sci-fi show *we*'d want to watch,' says
| Levin. 'But that's not to say we won't be showing you stuff that
| will take your breath away, effects-wise.'
.........
<quote from Flint>
.........
| "I didn't expect to end up in sci-fi, but the 'What'd happen if we
| could start over?' idea really appealed to me in the sense that it
| could be an idealized epic romance."
Obviously, Ms. Flint has never read "TARZAN," or any of the thousands
of "Adam And Eve" stories that used to pollute the SF field.
But then, we knew that already....
-------------------------------------------------------------
Following are the notes and comments I used to generate my first
entry in R.A.SF.TV concerning E-2.... I believe the title of
the article was something like "EARTH 2, VIEWERS 0," if anyone
cares enough to go find it in the archives.
-------------------------------------------------------------
fade in from black, super title: Earth 2
Starring Debrah Farentino,
Clancy Brown,
Sullivan Walker,
Jessica Steen,
John Gegenhuber,
Rebecca Gayheart,
Richard Bradford,
Joey Zimmerman,
J. Madison Wright, and
Antonio Sabato, Jr. as Alonzo Solace.
(This type of crediting indicates that somehow Sabato's agent was
able to net him a better deal, since he's credited last, and his
role's name is juxtaposed to his own.)
The acting credits are poorly done in that they don't match up with
the actors who are on-screen while the credit lines are super'd.
Music by David Bergeaud
Edited by Joanna Cappuccilli
Production Designer: Victoria Paul
Director of Photography: Felix Enriquez Alcala
(remember this last name.
Some of the camera handling and shot composition is topnotch work.
Even if the show founders, Alcala should do very well in the industry.)
Associate producers - Janace Tashjian, Chip Masamitsu
Coordinating Producer - John Melfi
Produced by Tony To
-----
In the first scene where we see "gear" used, Farentino's character flips
the display over her eye, and we see all kinds of bright reddish light
all around the eye. This is WAY too bright for anyone to be comfortable
with. Since we're a couple of centuries in the future, I'm at a loss
to understand why an LCD screen embedded in a contact lens, or a directly-
connected neural implant, is not used.
When Farentino's character sits at the control panel, the spandex vest
bunches and pulls most unbecomingly; the costume is designed for a person
who STANDS. When her back is to the camera, we can see a veritable
rat's nest of wires, bra straps, clips, and other paraphernalia showing
through the costume. At least it's not as bad as seeing zippers everywhere.
...but with this kind of production budget, the clothes should LOOK like
they're made out of better fabrics than can be bought over the counter NOW.
CREDIT> Created by Billy Ray
and Michael Duggan, Carol Flint, and Mark Levin.
We find that the E-2 heroes have picked up a secure broadcast.
We don't know HOW, because the line is delivered as
"...picked up from <mumble>."
We won't even get into the incredible stupidity of canning the news
program concerning the disaster, *before* the disaster occurs, AND
disseminating the sucker, even in coded form. This is just plain
submoronic, since it puts the Bad Guys at the mercy of every single
person involved with making the newscast and distributing it.
The newscaster refers to "vir-ah-lent opposition from both medical
and scientific fields..." as though fields of knowledge can have
opinions. (This is not necessarily a fault with the script; most
TV "news" actors are not well educated, and certainly aren't masters
of their own language; there's no real reason for this to change,
if we presume "TV news" still exists in two centuries....)
The newscaster also refers to the "first colony in the G-8 system."
Funny, I never heard of this "G-8" system. There was, however, a
series of pulp novels for kids, written about seventy years ago,
about a secret agent named "G-8." Naaah, more likely someone
told them that *A* G-8 system could have a habitable planet, and
they're so conceptually challenged they decided *THE* G-8 system
would be the planet's home.
We hear the dialog:
"I'm running a resonance scan of the entire ship right now..."
"You think there's explosives on board?"
A "resonance scan?" Well, we'll pass on that for the time being;
the concept may be derived from NMR scanning technology, and we'll
just assume that they've found some way to resonate and "scan" a
sample that's not in an NMR chamber..... but I wouldn't know how
to go about this without frying everything in the place with the
activating radiation.
As for "explosives," *why*? A spacecraft is so fragile and complex
that all it would take would be a half-clever computer malfunction.
Why destroy it on departure, leaving easily accessible evidence
nearby? Set it to detonate the ship's fuel store after everyone's
in cold sleep, and the ship's out of the solar system.
I don't know what they use for explosives in this era, but we have
explosives "sniffers" now that will ring an alarm if someone's been
in the same ROOM with standard explosives, much less carried some along.
The crudely, blatantly wired "explosives" we do see look more like a
few cylinders of plastique from a WW II movie. Chemical explosives
in an environment as tightly controlled as a spacecraft should be
ringing environmental monitor alarms right and left.
CREDIT> Teleplay by Michael Duggan, Carol Flint, and Mark Levin.
CREDIT> Story by Billy Ray and
CREDIT> Story by Michael Duggan, Carol Flint, and Mark Levin.
Well, this is the third time we've seen all these names in the
opening credits. Were they afraid we wouldn't notice them?
Then we hear the announcment that the "resonance scan" has found
ninety-seven items, and a "physical scan" is needed.
Whatever the niffleheim THAT means.
CREDIT> Directed by Scott Winant.
We hear a line referring to "Planet G889," apparently somehow
related to the "G-8 system."
Then we discover THE bomb. ONE bomb. In the Control Module,
not particularly hidden, and blatantly crude-looking, probably
easily disarmable.
The idea that a deep-space craft representing this much investment
has no backup control module is also a bit bizarre.
Shortly after that, while the ship is STILL IN SIGHT of its launch
point we hear, "How long before they realize they didn't get us?"
Oh, probably as soon as they look at a radar screen, or out the window...
Then we hear that the trip to the "G-8" system involves "22 light years
each way, how many administrations do you think that'll be?"
And then the line, "24 years of sleep, we can sure use it..."
Shortly followed by the line, "I won't wake up for 22 years, but
it'll seem like tomorrow, right?"
So, the crew will be in cold sleep for 22 years,(or 24?) and somehow
travel 22 light years in that time. That means they're travelling
*AT* the speed of light, with no acceleration or deceleration time,
and even though they're travelling at lightspeed, there's no
time dilation effect?
Give me a break; I know sixth-graders who could explain this to the
producers, if only the producers had had the wit, and the concern for
their product, to ask.
A quick check of the catalogs show only two G-type stars between
19.5 and 22 light years out.... 82 Eridani, a G5 at about 20.9
light years' distance, and Beta Hydri, a G1 at about 21.3 L.Y.
Both of these systems could conceivably have Terra-type planets
with oxynitrogen atmospheres and pine trees; but *NEITHER*
of them is "22 light years away."
(Xi Bootes, a teeny scosh *over* 22.0 light years away, is, conveniently,
a G-8; but there's no way you can get to it *in* 22 years, even cruising
right *at* lightspeed and presuming instantaneous acceleration and
deceleration.)
The only G8-type star within 22 light years is Tau Ceti, at a
distance of 12.2 light years; so the earlier garbage about "THE"
"G-8" system is almost certainly not a reference to stellar type.
Has anyone explained ANYTHING to these people? Did they ever
hear of hiring a technical advisor and asking him to take a look
at the farrago of nonsense they call a script?
We see people getting put to bed in cold-sleep chambers; apparently
this is a one-gee environment, since no hold-down straps are apparent.
<<major commercial break>>
FRAME TITLE: "22 YEARS LATER"
<camera pulls back past a floating bottle>
VOICE: "Artificial gravity restoration active" <no "THUNK" from
floating bottle falling> "....artificial life support system, check."
Later, during the landing malfunction, we see the glass tube from a
celebratory cigar fall and *break*...... we make borosilicate glass
NOW that just bounces, am I supposed to believe that classic, dangerous,
straight-silicon glass is still in use by THEN???
This must be Heavy Symbolism, as in Old Labored French Movies.
"Shattered Celebration." How poignant.
We hear, "...cargo pods won't release, they're dragging us down."
Since the whole ship shares the same velocity vector, and is not,
apparently, experiencing atmospheric drag at this point, the line
rather begs explanation.
Then, "Release mechanism is jammed... we picked up a heavy magnetic
charge." To be charitable, this choice of terminology is not
soothing; to be less than charitable, I've heard better techiegabble
in Jeri Taylor scripts, because she at least recognizes her own
limitations and asks the resident TREKspeak experts to make up
something that will sound at least marginally sensible.
We have the obligatory panic & rushing around, and then everything goes
straight into the atmosphere. Have they never heard of orbits?
Is this the way they always land? The "emergency pods" look like
modified Apollo capsules; no delta-vee capacity apparent, so they
HAVE to be on a re-entry course before the pods can be used....
The cargo pods are RECTANGULAR, but won't burn up or have odd courses
on re-entry? How were they planning on dropping them?
Then, parked on the planetary surface, we get:
"I want an atmospheric reading." "Melted."
So, we have a situation where colonists went to a planet without
knowing what the atmosphere was like? We have engineers who
mounted atmospheric testing gear on a re-entry pod, gear that
that was NOT designed to survive the landing?
Then we get: "Open the hatch." as a response to the announcement
that the air-testing gear is melted.... So much for needing an
atmospheric reading.
There's a discussion of "bone healer vaccine," which demonstrates
with abundant clarity that no one on the writing staff has any idea
what a "vaccine" is... (didn't one or more of these sterling lights
work on "doctor" shows in the past? Did they learn ANYTHING?)
Apparently there have been *NO* advances in clothing and materials
technology in centuries, and our E-2 colonists bought their whole
wardrobe off the rack at L.L. Bean's or REI....
In the scene where they discover one of the lost equipment pods,
the pod is picked clean, and we hear the line, "...vto aircraft,
titanium building equipment." ...As though the alloy is important.
This is like saying "The IRON building equipment" or "the COPPER
building equipment." Nonsensical. Pure titanium is not a good
structural material; it works best in alloys. Slapping the name
of a metallic element into a line that should have been read as
"...building equipment..." serves to demonstrate the engineering
and educational lacks of the writers and producers.
We hear the line, "We've checked the last 25 years' worth of probe
reports and there's nothing about flora and fauna..." ....so they
had TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF PROBE REPORTS, but didn't have info on
the composition of the planet's atmosphere? Riiiiiiiiight.
And most importantly, "THERE'S NOTHING ABOUT FLORA AND FAUNA?"
DOESN'T THIS SOUND LIKE A BIT OF A WARNING KLAXON TO YOU?
If someone was cooking the reports, it would have been easier to
just write the planet off as uninhabitable, no breathable atmosphere,
so no silly colonists would try to go there.
There's also no mention of how the probes worked, where they were
(in space or on surface?) and how the information was obtained;
obviously, the last 25 years' worth of data can't have been sent
back to the home system yet, since it's at least 22 light years.
Then we get a small fire-fight, precipitated by a critter on
the vehicle.... they left a rifle loaded and chambered?
Unattended? With no safety lock-outs? They DESERVED to die.....
In the course of this firefight, the incipient corpse takes a
wound in the LEFT side of his neck, yet his position was such
that he'd have been hit in the RIGHT side....
When we finally see some natives, the instant response of the
whole crew is along the lines of "Omigod... on the ridge!!!"
and panic, hurrying, and scurrying. ---why?
We get treated to another scene of someone using "gear," with
what has to be about a ten-watt light shining into the eye...
Then we're granted a sequence where the stupid wimpoid grabs some
kind of heavy rifle and opens fire at two bipeds on a nearby ridge;
they have NOT behaved in an overtly hostile fashion, but he grabs a
big honking gun and shoots at them, and no one tries to stop him.
(This show is obviously being produced and written by people who
have never spent any time with firearms, or been in any kind of
combat situation, and haven't the intelligence to get advice or
figure out what would happen logically.)
We hear the line, "...22 light years for this."
And a reference to "...250 families." (Hope we NEVER meet the
next shipment of personnel, if the ones on the show now are any
example.)
The next use of "gear" takes place at night, and the light-in-the-
eye brightness appears appropriate for high-light daytime use.
We see someone administer a "sedative," to a standing patient?
Real bright...
The extended, tedious dream sequence.
At one point, the female lead jumps into the natives' dream world
and is wandering in caves below... but although she can only be
there in some "astral form," she's able to talk with a guy who's
*physically* present in said caves.
Then we discover the nasty leather-faced natives who've stolen
the sick kid have healed him. Didn't I see this exact same
script on "WAGON TRAIN," back around 1958? Egotistical
businesswoman trying to get her wagon train to California
for her kid's health, kid kidnapped and healed by an Indian
Medicine Man? Seems to me the natives have a vaguely TV-Indian
look about them....
Suddenly it all falls into place. These producers have no SF
or literary background. They have no idea what's been done in
the field in the past, and the only story concepts they can derive
from are those they've seen on TV, or in movies.
The only outdoors show with people travelling.... eeeeyupp.
"WAGON TRAIN." Well, equivalent western plots we can expect
to see in future weeks will probably include variant Indian tribes;
Evil Cavalry Officers in pursuit; shell-shocked veterans from
the Civil War wandering alone; mysterious strangers with
secret agendas; desert crossings without water; some kind of
cholera epidemic; survivors from other wagon trains who claim
the natives have destroyed them, and who turn out to have
initiated the hostilities; a B. Traven-style greed attack when
they discover gold; dangerous river crossings; and if we're
REAL lucky, attacks by wild animals in packs.
I say, "if we're REAL lucky," because if there's any justice
in the universe, they'll all be eaten by Piranha Gerbils,
especially the kids.
Otherwise, we'll see recycled versions of the "WAGON TRAIN"
episode where they discover pockets of "lost civilizations,"
Incas and Spaniards, tucked away in the wilderness.
They spent more on this stupid excuse for a pilot than many
small nations spend on their national education budgets
every year. Why, with all that cash available, couldn't
they lower themselves to hire a *COMPETENT* writer?
----------------------------------------------------------------
The above comments, in a more edited form, appeared in my original
entry on E-2 in this topic, a number of months back. I was,
frankly, surprised to see that I'd mentioned B. Traven and
Gold Fever, since I'd forgotten my original entry by the time
"Better Living Through Morganite" aired.
Arnold Chu
: In article <3lnhhl$c...@news.csus.edu>, ghar...@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu
: (Gharlane of Eddore) wrote:
: > "Obscure?" An intriguing assertion, considering the solid following that
: > all of these shows, all still on the air save for "MR. PEEPERS," *HAVE*.
: > (Or did "THIS OLD HOUSE" get zapped when the guy sold out to a hardware
: > company? I've forgotten.... but it was utterly amazing SF while it was
: > on, and nearly every PBS station carried it.)
I'd call it FANTASY. Bob Vila spends all his time on Historical
Renovation project of interest ONLY to those YUPPIE Fixer-uppers.
How many people you know can spend that kind of money and time on
a house?
: Bob Vila went on to make millions in endorsement despite the petty actions
: of the Public Dole... Errr Broadcasting System. The show itself continued
: with a newer host with 1/4 the personality. Norm started a sequel series
: called "The New Yankee Workshop" where he maintained a way station for
: interstellar alein travelers and built zero point energy generators,
: anty-gravity coils and hand held scalar wave weaponry potent enought to
: flatten Everest.
I like the NEW show much better because it provided information of interest
to and USE to ordinary home owners, not where to get CUSTOM tin ceilings
done to your own design!
Regards,
A. Chu
-------------------------
All opinions are my own. No one else, including my employer is responsible
for them in any way.
AdamP29539
:discussing SF on TV. Since neither "EARTH 2" nor "SEAQUEST" :qualify
:s SF, neither should be mentioned here.
I'm sorry. But I could of sworn that both these shows WERE SF. Or does
your view of SF always have to involve outerspace, space ships, and
aliens. Oh wait all of these things have been heavily featured on BOTH
shows. I may not agree with what people have to say about these shows ( I
personaly like both. Especially E2. IMHO. No flames please :) )
I think if you look up the definiton of science fiction you will find both
shows qualify.
science fiction n. Abbr. sf, SF
A literary or cinematic genre in which fantasy, typically based on
speculative scientific discoveries or developments, environmental changes,
space travel, or life on other planets, forms part of the plot or
background.
Here you go in case you don't own a dictionary. Now please quit yelling at
people for talking about SF TV on the SF TV newsgroup.
**********************************************************
"If a man is considered guilty for what goes on in his mind, then give me
the electric chair for all my future crimes."
Prince 1958-1993
**********************************************************
goggans, debi or grant
>Xref: hobbes.cc.uga.edu rec.arts.sf.tv:30724 alt.tv.earth2:1853
> I was just curoius, are you complaining about the show being called
>SF or about the writing of the show? I was just curiuos as to why it matters
>many uneducated people call Animaniacs a cartoon instead of an Animated
>series, however, it's still by far one of the best shows on T.V. does
>terms really matter that much to you, after all there are many word out thier
>that mean differnt things to different people, saying government implies,
>congress,prez,city council, state gov,state leg,etc., or to some it could be
>a boss instructing people. One should accept their own def and if they want
>to consider E2 a fantasy drama show, or a scifi show is their room for both
>views?
Well, following a lengthy translation of this post, I'd like to comment
that there are basic guidelines for "science fiction" writing. While
I'm sure Gharlane could happily fill you in on what exactly constitutes
that definition, the thing that attracts me to "real" SF, when I am
attracted, has a little to do with outrageous speculation within the
confines of the natural universe and its laws. When you break those
confines, you're in the realm of fantasy, which can be a cool thing, and
why I prefer to think in terms of "telefantasy" rather than "sci-fi
teevee," but SF doesn't have much to do with circuits in your head
coroding and causing contagious brain cancer, at least in the sense
of "real" SF.
There again, "Earth 2" is just another product of the Hollywood
mentality...if it's got a spaceship, then it's sci-fi. If we're gonna
call it fantasy, we need an elf and a dragon. By its absurd logic and
poor science, "Earth 2" is simply a fantasy and not the science fiction
series that NBC told us was coming. To my mind, and no doubt Gharlane
would dispute this, I have no objection to the fantasy series that is
"Earth 2" remaining on the air and thriving despite the constant
ignorance of the universe's laws, like...um....physics. I do have an
objection to any program that thrives on bad writing, poor character-
ization, bad plotting, bad pacing, a serious overuse of establishing
shots and reliance on themes seen many times before on other programs.
(Just because somebody called the show "Little House in Space" doesn't
mean the kids should get lost...) These are the things that keep me
away from "Earth 2" despite repeated (well, five) attempts to watch
it, and this is why I'm all for its cancellation. The fact that it
doesn't fit my definition of "science fiction," whatever that's worth,
is not an issue, It's the fact that it doesn't fit my definition of
"good television."
Gharlane of Eddore
>Gharlane writes
>>> So what is it you want to see?
>>Look at any SF *OR* Fantasy by Poul Anderson.
>
> you that TASTES VARY, a concept which your several billion neurons
> can't seem to adequately formulate.
Ah. "Mediocre." *that* must be why he's got all those Hugos and Nebulas
on the mantelpiece.....
> You've single-handedly convinced me of the requirement for
> rec.arts.sf.tv.advocacy newsgroup to direct the various rantings
> and ravings bashing various shows. With your periodic trotting out of
> various clay pigeons (e.g. English majors), non-sequiturs, vague,
> generalized pronouncements of opinion as fact, nitpicking grammar
> and spelling to belittle the intelligence of other posters, impugning of
> personal (and unknowable) motives, you'd be a leading figure on the
> advocacy group. There, you could rant to your hearts content
> instead of clogging up the newsgroup here.
Sorry, lad... this is the "rec.arts.sf.tv" newsgroup. It's for
discussing SF on TV. Since neither "EARTH 2" nor "SEAQUEST" qualify
as SF, neither should be mentioned here; it's just simple courtesy to
the people who have to pay by traffic volume for their net access,
and who would subscribe to an E-2 topic, if they wanted to read it.
> The real reason why you have an active _grudge_ against E2
> is because you don't like the producers/writers stated attitudes
> and can't seem to look beyond that. That's poor critical judgement.
> Just what is it that you do for a living?
"Active grudge" is hardly the correct term; "raw flaming hatred" comes
a bit closer.
How else am I *supposed* to react when a troop of brain-damage cases
come parading out, bragging about the fact that they don't know thing
one about "sci-fi," but that they're going to be shooting an SF series
with a megabuck-plus/show budget level....... when I have friends in
L.A. who *do* know SF, are qualified to produce a series, and can't
get their toes into any doors because of miserable excrescences like
"EARTH 2" and "SEAQUEST?" ("Sci-Fi, SF, it's all the same; it's a
kids' show, right? So show me what you got, and prove you can shoot
it on the cheap, and maybe we'll take a few meetings with the Approval
Board....")
It's not WHAT you know, it's WHO you know.
It's not WHAT you can do, but whether you can do things the same way
everyone else always has, to assure an unstressed viewership who won't
have to do any thinking.
John P. LaRocque
>>>| "The beginning of all things is the |
>>>| knowlege of God." - Baha'u'llah |
>> ^
>> insert d here
>>Forgot that spell checker, eh?
>Are all the people that object to "Earth 2" fixated on spelling? Is that a
>clue to why they don't understand the show?
Well, Ms. Bohnhoff has so wonderfully pointed out that she is a writer
and a member of the SFWA. Why can't I criticize her spelling?
>I've got to run now... I'm going to jog to a book store to see what Maya
>Kaathryn Bohnhoff has written.
Crystal Rose, Baen Books, March 1995. There's no description in Locus,
but it sounds like Fantasy to me.
She has done several fantasy collaborations (the titles of which have
escaped my mind). They're in several back issues of Locus, which I
do not immediately have at hand.
Have I mentioned that I hate elves, wizards, magic and medieval claptrap.
Sounds like a return to barbarism to me. Why, in the 20th century, when
we have so much technology, to people want to write about an age before
reason and modern science, an age of superstition and the worship of
authority figures. This criticism could cover a wide variety of fantasy
published in the last 20 years, and includes major authors like Robert
Jordan.
There IS good fantasy out there, but most of it is all done buy old guys
and dead guys. I have a particular affinity to "heroic fantasy" as defined
by Robert E. Howard (author of the Conan books). Here wizards, superstition
and magic are something to be despised and feared (in the books at least)
put to the sword. Howard's stories are about individualism and self-
reliance, and not worship of authority. This is my kind of fantasy.
Other good fantasy to work from includes those that build up real
mythologies or re-interpret them. Not lame clones of Tolkien. Good
fantasy work such as Poul Anderson's "Hrolf Krakis" saga, which
reinterprets Norse myths. Recently I came across Orson Scott Card's
"Homecoming" series, which interprets the Book of Mormon in a
science fiction context. Quite good (I'm a Card fan).
>I really have appreciated reading her articulate posts. I know that some
>sophisticated people like "Earth 2." However, until Ms. Bohnhoff stated
>her observations, I assumed "Earth 2" was poorly written and I was too
>ignorant [or mesmerized by the Art] to notice it.
But the postings of published writers want you to chagne your mind?
>Frank
--
|----\___ John P. LaRocque (lar...@gaul.csd.uwo.ca)
********]|-----|___\__________
********]|_______>___________/ "There are those who believe
|_____ / that life here began out there..."
John P. LaRocque
>>>>Let's get this straight. Gharlane has never advocated abrogating anybody's
>>>>constitutional rights. In fact, he is exercising them, namely, his
>>>>First Amendment free speech rights.
>>> There are things we can do to hurt people that are not against the law.
>>>Going out of my way to remove a TV show that I don't appreciate would be one
>>>of those ways to hurt people without breaking the law.
>>Is it that much different from going out of your way to show support for
>>a particlular show? It's not censorship to offer your advice to people,
>>especially if it comes without a price.
> I agree, but the "criticism" some are offering is simply a judgment that
>the show isn't decent Science Fiction and should THEREFORE not be aired. In
>other words some people use a fixed opinion to judge the show. Then they
>act in an intolerant maner. [Hence, I used the word bigot.]
As is their right. And if you interpret Gharlane's posts that way, that's
your right as well.
> Gharlane and a couple other people act as if they are part of campaign to
>remove shows with "Science Fiction Themes", that aren't scientifically sound
>(e.g., people can't swim through rock) from the TV. Gharlane, however,
>does more than simply debate issues.
He does it with style, finesse and grace?
>>> That would make me happy for a number of reasons. One reason is that I
>>>find bigotry disgusting.
>>Expressing your opinion is bigotry?
> Of course not.
> Also note the following is a logical fallacy.
[truth table deleted]
Sorry, in the age of fuzzy logic it just doesn't apply. As Campbell
said, you don't have to accept the suppositions of your opponent. I
don't accept your premises either. So it doesn't hold any water to me.
>>What a strange world? We have Earth 2 supporters who would be perfectly
>>happy if criticism of that show were stifled, and critics of Earth 2
>>are labelled Nazis for expressing themselves. Welcome to the 90's.
> I don't think anyone called the "Earth 2" critics that act like bigots
>Nazis. A person did point out a similarity in the polemics that Nazis use
>and the polemics that Gharlane uses.
And 98% of America's prison inmates watched television before comitting
their crimes, and that all child molesters go to the bathroom....
The question you should be asking - are his polemics right? Is he on
the ball? I think much of the time he is.
>>That depends on what "science fiction" is, and who defines it. A lot of
>>television shows have used science fiction themes, but few of them I
>>think can be held to a strict definition of "science fiction". For example,
>>Quantum Leap had a time travel element, but it was used as a plot device
>>and little else.
> "Who defines it"? Don't you get it!! Definitions are the product of the
>entrails of creation.
So if a pure fantasy show (say, Quantum Leap) calls itself "science
fiction", the rest of us have to accept this label just because the
majority of the fans and critics feel that way.
Uh uh. This is EXACTLY why most published "SF" today (and most tv
shows) doesn't really qualify as science fiction. Today's "SF"
market is glutted with corporate properties (Star Dreeck, gaming),
fantasy and licensed works of other people's character's and ideas.
"Science fiction" is in its death throes...
> It is the experience [in "the moment"] that counts. When some people
>experience an "Earth 2" episode like "The Water" their hearts jump for Joy
>at the end of the show as the characters have their water fight <note 2>.
>The fact that the show is or is not "Science Fiction" is irrelevant. The
>fact that some people would like to deny them that joy is. [Especially,
>when it doesn't cost them anything.]
It "made me feel good", therefore it is "good". Who cares about the
bad or nonexistent science, it is "science fiction" programming because
I "feel" it is and am backed up by a "professional science fiction
writer" who concurs with my opinion, and gosh darnit, so does TV Guide!
Welcome to the "New Age".
>Frank
>Note 2: The episode "Water" was written by Carol Flint and directed by Joe
>Napolitano and I am grateful to both of them for their work of Art.
Not just "art", it's "Art". We're talking Michaelangelo here...
karl Griffin
> interest. But Gharlane has just about convinced me that I need to
> resume. Could it *possibly* be as thoroughly wretched as he claims?
Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Karl Griffin
Carleton University
Email address: kgri...@chat.carleton.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Felixberto
AdamP29539 <adamp...@aol.com> wrote:
>: (attribution deleted... but looks like something GoE wrote)
>:Sorry, lad... this is the "rec.arts.sf.tv" newsgroup. It's for
>
> ...stuff deleted...
>I think if you look up the definiton of science fiction you will find both
>shows qualify.
>
>science fiction n. Abbr. sf, SF
>A literary or cinematic genre in which fantasy, typically based on
>speculative scientific discoveries or developments, environmental changes,
>space travel, or life on other planets, forms part of the plot or
>background.
>
>Here you go in case you don't own a dictionary. Now please quit yelling at
>people for talking about SF TV on the SF TV newsgroup.
Just a comment here. The dictionary is a fine and wonderful thing,
but it is not the best place to go to for the definition of science fiction.
Especially not if you intend to argue the point with people who are familiar
with works by Wells, Verne, Campbell, Blish, Card, Forward, etc.. If you
really want to know what science fiction is, the best thing to do would be
to read the works recognized as science fiction, many people on the net I
am sure would be glad to give you a list of where to start. If you don't
want to go that route, try some articles and/or books on science fiction
by Asimov, Bova, Card and other recognized authorities in the field.
Just for starters, here's one definition from Orson Scott Card,
"science fiction is what could be but isn't, fantasy is about what
couldn't be." Now try to apply that to E2 or SQ and see what you come
up with.
felix
Heather S Geary
I have been reading the E2 newsgroup for a couple of weeks now.
The amount of Earth2 bashing is amazing. I have read that people
do not consider E2 science fiction. I have read about the bad scripts,
bad acting, bad time slot, and other factors which contribute to the
shows not-so-good ratings.
The idea that Earth2 is not science-fiction struck me the most.
So, I thought I would put in my $0.02 worth.
If one looks at science-fiction books (tv, movies, etc),
what would one expect of find? Perhaps, one would find
references to the future (no matter how good or bad it
may be), references to technology (most likely the advancement
of it), references to exploration (most often space exploration),
references to alien races (usually in associating with the exploration).
Now, if one breaks down all the above references, what does one see?
Well, I see the following relations:
References to alien races is used in many types of genres. It
goes hand in hand with exploration. When people explore, they
will meet 'aliens'. When the Romans extended their empire,
they meet 'aliens'. Though it is true that the 'aliens' were
humans, the fact is that these people were different from the
Romans and therefore alien. In westerns, the 'aliens' are the
American Indians.
Exploration is not soley a feature of science fiction, nor is it
solely a feature of one type of genre. Exploration is found in
westerns, war stories, fantasies, romance novels, and even poetry.
Technology is definitely not associated only with science-fiction.
Many war stories, westerns, fantasies, romance novels, and again
even poetry deal with technology. For example, a western may mention
the invention of the gun. That is technology for that time period.
I remember reading a poem (unfortunately I have forgotten the title
and author) written by a young soldier who saw his fellow soldiers
die due to mustard gas. That poem deals with technology, and its
consequences.
The future is most commonly associated with science-fiction; however,
many fantasy stories are set in the future. Some poetry deals with
the future.
Now, one can relate all of the above to E2. Moreover, the above
can be related to any of the ST's, B5, Seaquest, and VR5. E2 is
a show about exploration of an alien world in the future. The
characters are continually meeting aliens and facing the challenges
of a different world and of interacting with different cultures.
They must deal with their own technology plus the technology of G889.
When I say they must deal with their own technology, I mean that they
must learn to adapt their technology to the planet plus be able to
repair their equipment. The technology of the planet may not be what
most people consider technology (gadgets).
Webster's defines technology as
1: technical language 2a: applied science 2b: a technical method
of achieving a practical purpose 3: the totality of the means employed
to provide objects necessary for human sustenance and comfort
If one uses defintion 3, then one can see the use of technology on
G889. The humans, Grendlers, and Terrians use the the planet to provide
for their sustenance and comfort. Also, definition 2 applies. The
Terrians use the 'dream plane' for a practical purpose - communication.
They use the planet itself for traveling - the disappearing into the ground
and reappearing in another location. There are other examples to be found
from the show for both definitions.
I feel that Earth2 is a science-fiction show. It employs the
features of not only science-fiction but other genres as well.
As for the scripts, I will say that they have had their share
of bad writing, but then so has every other on television.
As for the cast, I like them. They may or may not be the greatest
actors/actresses in the world, but then that is relative. That
depends upon the viewer. I happen to think Katherine Hepburn was
a great actress, but I know some people who disagree with me.
As for the time slot, I think it is ashame that I must choice
between E2 and 60 Minutes. I do like both shows.
----
Heather Geary ge...@widget.ecn.purdue.edu
Male and female represent the two sides of the great radical dualism.
But, in fact, they are perpetually passing into one another. Fluid hardens
to solid, solid rushes to fluid. There is no wholly masculine man, no purely
feminine woman. --M. Fuller "Women in the Nineteenth Century"
F. Felixberto
>ghar...@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu (Gharlane of Eddore) wrote:
>>
>>Sure. "Worm bullets." "Bone-healer vaccine." "22 light years."
>>"'THE' G-8 system." "Virtual Reality." "Pineal gland."
>>"Frozen Bad Grendler." "Chip-implanted used-to-be-evil cyborg."
>>"Stupid kid." "Stupid leader." "Silicon solar cells."
>
> Oh! I thought you and others were talking about writing and dialogue when
>you referred to bad writing.
They are all part of the package. Bad story writing is not limited
to bad dialogue, or poor characterization, or bad spelling, it includes
the plot, the setting, the rules that the characters have to live by, and
a host of other things. Over here at ODU, students have to take a writing
proficiency exam before they can graduate, this consists of an essay in
response to a question that the student picks from a list. One of the
things the graders look for is if the student has answered the question.
If not, it doesn't matter how "good" the essay is, it could be
syntactically and grammatically perfect, it could move the graders to
tears, it could change people's lives, it would still be given a failing
mark, it is bad writing because it did not meet its goal (please
discount the hyperbole, I get carried away sometimes :)).
In the case of a story, it must fulfill its goal, which is to
have an audience listen to, watch, or read it. If for any reason, it
fails to do that, then it is badly written. It doesn't matter if
dialogue is good, or whatever else you think constitutes good writing is
good, if you have to work to like the story, then it is badly written.
Let me borrow from "Characters and Viewpoint" by Orson Scott Card.
He was talking about short story and novel writing but it is still
basically writing. According to Card, an audience will ask three
questions of your story: (1) So what? Why should I care about this
story? (2) Oh Yeah? You expect me to believe that? (3) Huh? What
in the world is going on? (If you are wondering why there are two
questions per number, the first one is Card's, the second is my
interpretation.) The competent writer will be ready for
all of these questions. If the story gets stuck in any one of them,
then there is something wrong with the writing.
> ...stuff deleted...
> When I watch the reruns of the earlier (good) episodes, I want to spot the
>bad writing. The fact that no-one has pointed out bad writing doesn't mean
>it isn't there.
>
>Frank
Try starting with those three questions and see what you come
up with.
felix
Gharlane of Eddore
GOE> Sorry, lad... this is the "rec.arts.sf.tv" newsgroup. It's for
GOE> discussing SF on TV. Since neither "EARTH 2" nor "SEAQUEST" qualify
GOE> as SF, neither should be mentioned here.
>
> I'm sorry. But I could of sworn that both these shows WERE SF. Or does
> your view of SF always have to involve outerspace, space ships, and
> aliens. Oh wait all of these things have been heavily featured on BOTH
> shows. I may not agree with what people have to say about these shows ( I
> personaly like both. Especially E2. IMHO. No flames please :) )
>
> I think if you look up the definiton of science fiction you will find both
> shows qualify.
>
> science fiction n. Abbr. sf, SF
> A literary or cinematic genre in which fantasy, typically based on
> speculative scientific discoveries or developments, environmental
> changes, space travel, or life on other planets, forms part of the
> plot or background.
>
> Here you go in case you don't own a dictionary. Now please quit yelling
> at people for talking about SF TV on the SF TV newsgroup.
>
Sorry, son; the definition you quote was created by an incompetent
lexicographer with no background in the field.
The actual definition, created by the people who created the term, is:
=======================================================================
|| "It's Science Fiction, if, presuming technical competence on the ||
|| the part of the writer, he genuinely believes it could happen. ||
|| Otherwise, it's FANTASY." ||
|| --- John W. Campbell, Jr. ||
=======================================================================
As soon as you see a "definition" of SF that *includes* the word "fantasy,"
like the one in the dictionary you blithely quoted as a reference,
you're looking at a definition created in the absence of information,
knowledge, and experience; and were I you, I wouldn't place much reliance
on the dictionary you found it in, because the lexicographers involved
obviously have no respect for their own profession.
For your own future amusement, here are some guidelines:
"SF" -- Science Fiction. Explores the effects on human beings of
changes in science and technology; in "Classic" SF, only one
presumption is allowed per story, and it must be consistent
with known science or theory. SF cannot be written by people
with no background in physics, math, chemistry, biology,
linguistics, anthropology, psychology, etc.
Internal consistency is *critical.*
"FANTASY" -- Tells a story set in a milieu which, by no extreme of the
writer's imagination, can be defended as likely to exist ANYwhere.
Good Fantasy is internally consistent, and does not rely on out-of-
the-hat magic to solve the problems.
"Sci-Fi" -- term invented, and later disowned, by Forrest J Ackerman; he
was appalled at the way it was mis-applied, and became a generic
referent to everything from Heinlein to "GODZILLA" movies.
Since the writers and producers of "EARTH 2" and "SEAQUEST" are
ignorant of SF, physics, science, and logic, both shows qualify
in spades as "Sci-Fi," and "Kiddie Sci-Fi" at that.
"Speculative Fiction"
"Spec-Eff" --- The preferred term in use by many professionals, since it
ducks the need for careful categorization while avoiding the social
stigma of "Sci-Fi."
(Example: Harlan Ellison will agree that he writes "Speculative
Fiction," but he will rip your throat out if you call him an
"SF Writer;" it has to do with categorization and ghettos.)
=========================================================================
At the present time, on TV, "BABYLON 5" is right on the ragged edge of
definition; since it uses FTL travel *and* Psi powers, it might in strict
terms be limited to the "Fantasy" genre. However, the internal consistency
and scrupulous attention to detail are enough that I'm not averse to calling
it "SF."
"VR5" appears to be teetering on the border as well; after a slow start,
we're seeing a well-planned milieu which, depending on the skill of the
writers, may qualify as straight "SF" eventually.
"SLIDERS" violates its own internal consistency with every show, violates
logic, physics, math, chemistry, and biology.
"SLIDERS" is "Sci-Fi." (I'll continue to watch it for a while yet.)
"X-FILES" is Fantasy/Horror, although it occasionally uses SF schticks as
plot elements; but it hasn't made any SF shows yet.
Hope this helps, Tweedledum.
Justin McElhanon
> >many uneducated people call Animaniacs a cartoon instead of an Animated
> >series, however, it's still by far one of the best shows on T.V.
>
^^^^^^^
This sort of proves my point, your idea, or my idea differs
however even if they try to pull in the SF audience I think the show will
be graded on it's merit, not by what it's called. Pepople are not so
easily fooled after a show fails to meet expectantion. A things name
can't determine it character onlt the writing of it. For example, President
Clinton is called Prez but he isn't one, more like a loser who suck in due
to a divided vote. So even if they said SF or Space Opera, if people don't
like it they don't like it you can't call a movie like Nothing but Trouble
Forest Gump and still get the crowds to come out after the first day, they
will say, I..I..I don't think so and the show will flop.
> Having seen almost ALL the Warner cartoons, I can say NONE of the
> Spielberg ripoffs (Animaniacs, Tiny Toons) holds a candle to the
> original classic shorts. They all want to make cartoons "educational"
I little off topic here but I agree with you on Tiny Toons, however, I
don't see any way that the dialoge helps make A! educational? The dialoge
is what increases the humor, becasue you have to know something about think
to understand the illusions and IMHO it makes it far funnier than site
gags i.e. useless violence.
>
> Yes terms "does" matter to me. If you are going to market something
> as "science fiction", it has to have a science component, and it has
> to be something integral to the storyline. Otherwise you have to choose
> a different label. "Space opera" is its own genre (Flash Gordon, Star
> Wars).
> Picture this - put in its place not archaeologists, but tomorrow's science
> fiction readers (or even today's). And have them pick up something like
> Asimov's "Foundation" or George Smith's "Venus Equilateral". What's this
> they'll ask? Yeah, what is it?
Well won't the market determine that as already discussed a label
can't make a product, only what it does can. If the reader don't enjoy
reading "real" SF then it won't get pub, if they look and say look these
Asimov's books are awsome, then more right ward SF will get pub, therefore
just flooding the market with leftist SF will not cause all interest in
right SF to dimine do to laws of survival of the best stories and plots.
Justin McElhanon
Prabal Nandy
>Or did you want me to discuss the dialog and the zero-dimensional
>character development and the labored, idiotic character interaction
>that wouldn't be taking place among adults with I.Q.'s over 90?
[....]
>Post a copy of a script, and I'll re-write it for you, on line, to
>show how it *chould* be done, were any of their writing staff competent
>to perform at a level above that of a sub-moronic lobotomized garden
>slug.....
[...]
Heh heh heh... Well, I don't know about E2, but I certainly would like to
see someone do this with the abhorrently boring plots of ST:Voyager etc...
Geez, Sci-Fi on TV today really really sucks. I think I'll burn my official
Sci-Fi lover's card.
You know, I DID have high hopes for E2, but the latest "Magic Love/Hate
Spiders" and "Terrian on Ice" type episodes are really beginning to depress
me... SURELY they can't be out of ideas so soon? Can they?
Finally, I do think that the saving grace of this show is the above
average acting. Compared to ST:Voy and B5, et al. But Acting does not a
Bogus Plot Save, eh?
'Living Planet', 'Metaphysical Plane', eh... might be PC, and MAYBE I
could tolerate it if it was done well... but ah, can you believe modern
people actually trying to explain phenomenon like the "Magic teleporter
portal" in terms of "The longing of oppositely charged Arachnids?" Come on,
who is coming up with these ideas!?
Now, do I like this better than TNG's "Particle of the week"? Well,
yes... But my patience is definately getting strained. One or two more
mind-sickening episodes like we've been seeing and forget it, I stop
watching this show.
Sad, really. I thought Spielsburg could redeem himself to SF.
--
/| ________________ |pr...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu | Lord of the Flies
O|===|* >________________> |http://sunset.bph.jhu.edu| 1st MPC Division
\| | /Myops.home.html | Colony Mechworks
Velox - Durus - Infestus | na...@fos.stsci.edu | Colony World Myops
Dianne Hackborn
| I'd rather see really bad SF on the air than really bad sitcoms on the
| air. If airtime is a concern, let's attack Step by Step instead of Earth 2.
Cheese from the future is still just cheese.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dianne Kyra Hackborn "Everything that gives us pleasure also gives us
hac...@mail.cs.orst.edu pain to measure it by."
Oregon State University -- The Residents
//www.cs.orst.edu/~hackbod/
Gharlane of Eddore
"goggans, debi or grant" <GOG...@MUSIC.CC.UGA.EDU> writes:
>
> Once upon a time, it was said, by Frank, I think:
>
> > You don't know what you are talking about, since many people say they
> > love "Earth 2." IMO shows like "Earth 2" and "My So-Called Life" will
>
>
> > Well, "many people" supported the Third Reich, too.
>
> and there were at least three responses like:
>
> > I don't think this comparison is apt, since neither "Earth 2" or "My
> > So-Called Life" encourages the slaughter of human beings, as did some
> > of the Third Reich leadership.
>
> Which prompts me to ask:
>
> For heaven's sake, am I the only one who understood Gharlane's point?
>
> Would it make it any more lucid to think along the lines of "many people
> used to think the Earth is flat," or "many people thought hydrogen-
> filled balloons were perfectly safe" or "many people thought that
> the Luisitania wouldn't get torpedoed" or "many people thought the
> Yugo would sell hugely?"
>
> The equation was *not* many people are fans of Earth 2 and therefore
> Nazis, it was, many people are fans of Earth 2 and many people were
> fans of a bloody stupid idea. My mom always used to say "If 40,000
> people jumped off a cliff, does that mean you should, too?" Same
> principle.
>
> Astonishing how the same few "Earth 2" fans who will bore you senseless
> with talk of the metaphysical plane and the Jungian archetypes of the
> spiders on the planet are completely incapable of following a simple
> piece of logic.
>
There's one other aspect..... I was attempting to cleverly work
a Reich reference into the discussion, because I found it boring,
and thereby trigger a thread-death. (Godwin's Rule #4.)
I had *neglected* the effect of Quirk's Exception, however.
Here's a list of the most common UseNet Rules, derived from Dave DeLaney's
excellent FAQ (well, excellent except for the thoroughly scurrilous and
ill-informed entry concerning me --- D.D. claims no responsibility, and
*says* the file is being maintained by someone else now. Riiiiiight.)
At any rate; the RULES.
======================================================================
UseNet Rules #n:
No firm info at the present time is available on just what the other
UseNet Rules #n are. However, at a guess, they include:
--
Rule #nonumber:
There are no hard-and-fast Rules on UseNet, only Guidelines,
which are more or less strictly enforced (and differ) from group
to group; this is why it's generally wise to read any group for a
bit before ever posting to it.
Rule #0:
*There* *is* *no* *C*b*l*.
There *is*, however, a net-wide conspiracy designed solely to lead
Dave Hayes (q.v.) to believe that there is a C*b*l.
Corollary: *There* *are* *no* *pods*.
Rule #1:
Spellling and grammer counts.
So do grace, wit, and a sense of humor (the latter two are different),
as well as a willingness to meet odd people, but these are lesser
considerations.
Rule #2 (John Gilmore):
"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."
Rule #3 ("Why 3?" "Because we felt like it"):
For every opinion there is at least one equally loud and opposing
opinion; sometimes stated as: "In UseNet discussions, Newtonian
Physics holds."
Rule #4: (Godwin's Rule)
Any off-topic mention of Hitler or Nazis will cause the thread it is
mentioned in to an irrelevant and off-topic end very soon; every thread on
UseNet has a constantly-increasing probability to contain such a mention.
Quirk's Exception: Intentional invocation of this so-called "Nazi Clause"
is ineffectual.
Case's Corollary: If the subject is Heinlein or homosexuality, the
probability of a Hitler/Nazi comparison being made becomes equal to one.
Rule #5 (Reimer's Reason):
Nobody ever ignores what they should ignore on Usenet.
Rule #6 (Eddie Saxe):
Don't post to misc.test unless you understand the consequences.
Rule #7-B:
There is no topic so thoroughly covered that no one will ever
bring it up again.
Rule #9:
It's *always* September, *somewhere* on the Net.
Dave Fischer's Extension: 1993 was The Year September Never Ended.
[so far, there doesn't seem to be much evidence he's wrong...]
Rule #17:
Go not to UseNet for counsel, for they will say both `No' and `Yes'
and `Try another newsgroup'.
Rule $19.99 (Brad `Squid' Shapcott):
The Internet *isn't* *free*.
It just has an economy that makes no sense to capitalism.
Rule #27 (Gary Lewandowski):
"In cyberspace, *everyone* can hear you scream."
Rule #29:
No rational discourse can occur in a thread cross-posted to
more than two newsgroups.
Rule #37 (Faisal Nameer Jawdat):
Read the thread from the beginning, or else.
Rule #108 (from the soc.motss FAQ):
"What will happen to me if I read soc.motss?"
"In general, nothing. (You may be informed or infuriated, of course;
but that's a standard Usenet hazard.)"
Rule #547 (Arne Adolfsen):
When people know they're wrong they resort to ad hominems.
Rule #666:
Old alt groups never die.
They don't fade away nicely, either.
Rule #90120:
Applying your standards to someone else's post *will* result
in a flamewar.
Rule #x^2:
FAQs are asked frequently. Get used to them.
--
Foob's Law states that the quickest way to completely derail any netnews
discussion is to bring up gun control.
--
======================================================================
(Foob's Law is one of my favorites; no one had warned Straczynski about
it, but I suspect it will be a *LONG* time before he takes it upon
himself to hand down uninformed pronunciamentos on the subject again,
at least unless he's *certain* he's safely surrounded by nothing but
Brady/Feinstein supporters.)
John P. LaRocque
Justin McElhanon <tho...@dfw.net> wrote:
>> So if a pure fantasy show (say, Quantum Leap) calls itself "science
>> fiction", the rest of us have to accept this label just because the
>> majority of the fans and critics feel that way.
>> Uh uh. This is EXACTLY why most published "SF" today (and most tv
>> shows) doesn't really qualify as science fiction. Today's "SF"
>> market is glutted with corporate properties (Star Dreeck, gaming),
>> fantasy and licensed works of other people's character's and ideas.
>> "Science fiction" is in its death throes...
> I was just curoius, are you complaining about the show being called
>SF or about the writing of the show?
Just complaining...
You know, they seem to attach SF to almost anything these days, almost
as if they think it will increase their marketshare or grab the Trekkie
market.
>I was just curiuos as to why it matters
>many uneducated people call Animaniacs a cartoon instead of an Animated
>series, however, it's still by far one of the best shows on T.V.
I've always considered the terms synonymous. My idea of a "cartoon"
or an animated short is a 7-minute piece, usually from the classic
period (Warner Bros' 40-50's, Tex Avery, Woody Woodpecker etc...).
Few seem to follow this format, but one happy exception is MTV's
Beavis and Butthead, which minus the music videos is one of the
finest animated series ever (and well written too).
Having seen almost ALL the Warner cartoons, I can say NONE of the
Spielberg ripoffs (Animaniacs, Tiny Toons) holds a candle to the
original classic shorts. They all want to make cartoons "educational"
and take out the mindless (and funny) violence that made the originals
so fun to watch. Too much dialogue and not enough action!
>does
>terms really matter that much to you,
Yes terms "does" matter to me. If you are going to market something
as "science fiction", it has to have a science component, and it has
to be something integral to the storyline. Otherwise you have to choose
a different label. "Space opera" is its own genre (Flash Gordon, Star
Wars).
Re-read Gharlane's repost of a puff-piece on E2 - "We've never done
science fiction before and we don't know anything about it". About
sums it up, doesn't it. Glen Larson's "Buck Rogers" or "Galactica 1980"
had a better grasp of the genre (Buck was better to watch anyways).
>after all there are many word out thier
>that mean differnt things to different people, saying government implies,
>congress,prez,city council, state gov,state leg,etc., or to some it could be
>a boss instructing people. One should accept their own def and if they want
>to consider E2 a fantasy drama show, or a scifi show is their room for both
>views?
Nice. Here's something for you. Remember those old Pepsi commercials
where archeaologists in the future dig up a Coke bottle and ask "What's
this".
Picture this - put in its place not archaeologists, but tomorrow's science
fiction readers (or even today's). And have them pick up something like
Asimov's "Foundation" or George Smith's "Venus Equilateral". What's this
they'll ask? Yeah, what is it?
We've redefined science fiction so that true science fiction no longer
gets recognized or published to any great degree any more.
Frank McNeil
>In <07APR95.21...@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>
>"goggans, debi or grant" <GOG...@MUSIC.CC.UGA.EDU> writes:
>>
>> Once upon a time, it was said, by Frank, I think:
>>
>> > You don't know what you are talking about, since many people say they
>> > love "Earth 2." IMO shows like "Earth 2" and "My So-Called Life" will
>>
>> and Gharlane replied:
>>
>> > Well, "many people" supported the Third Reich, too.
>>
>> and there were at least three responses like:
>>
>> > I don't think this comparison is apt, since neither "Earth 2" or "My
>> > So-Called Life" encourages the slaughter of human beings, as did some
>> > of the Third Reich leadership.
>>
>> Which prompts me to ask:
>>
>> For heaven's sake, am I the only one who understood Gharlane's point?
Just another skillful and successful action designed to silence some
"Earth 2" fans.
>> Would it make it any more lucid to think along the lines of "many people
>> used to think the Earth is flat," or "many people thought hydrogen-
>> filled balloons were perfectly safe" or "many people thought that
>> the Luisitania wouldn't get torpedoed" or "many people thought the
>> Yugo would sell hugely?"
No, but it would have been more sensitive, since some people affected by
the Third Reich don't think many members of Third Reich were as stupid as
you say the people that love "Earth 2" are.
>> The equation was *not* many people are fans of Earth 2 and therefore
>> Nazis, it was, many people are fans of Earth 2 and many people were
>> fans of a bloody stupid idea. My mom always used to say "If 40,000
>> people jumped off a cliff, does that mean you should, too?" Same
>> principle.
Members of the Third Riech did some very nasty thing before they lost
the war by making "stupid" mistakes. People that Love "Earth 2" just watch
TV.
>> Astonishing how the same few "Earth 2" fans who will bore you senseless
>> with talk of the metaphysical plane and the Jungian archetypes of the
>> spiders on the planet are completely incapable of following a simple
>> piece of logic.
When you make a comparison between two classes of objects you are stating
that they have some properties in common.
>There's one other aspect..... I was attempting to cleverly work
>a Reich reference into the discussion, because I found it boring,
>and thereby trigger a thread-death. (Godwin's Rule #4.)
I respect your superior [to me] cleverness, but I don't like it at all.
Frank
[deleted]
eni...@news.dorsai.org
: You know, I DID have high hopes for E2, but the latest "Magic Love/Hate
: Spiders" and "Terrian on Ice" type episodes are really beginning to depress
: me... SURELY they can't be out of ideas so soon? Can they?
Oh come on!! One so-so episode in the lot and your already complaining.
Every epiosde can't be a gem. We haven't even reached the level of
Seaquest yet. Six really bad episdoes in a row and then we have a problem.
Victor