You think Caprica tanked?
Dillon Pyron
two episodes. The lead in show (Ozzy?) came in with 1.4 million and
David's show had 740 odd thousand and then a little over 600K.
Now THAT'S tanking. When you flush 50% of your audience, either the
network screwed up in its positioning or your show sucks. Losing
another almost 18% the next week suggests it wasn't positioning.
--
- dillon I am not invalid
An object's desireability to a dog is directly
proportional to its desireability to another dog.
AC
> Apparently the David Hasselhof "reality show" has been cancelled after
> two episodes. The lead in show (Ozzy?) came in with 1.4 million and
> David's show had 740 odd thousand and then a little over 600K.
>
> Now THAT'S tanking. When you flush 50% of your audience, either the
> network screwed up in its positioning or your show sucks. Losing
> another almost 18% the next week suggests it wasn't positioning.
Yeah, it tanked. This, er, show just tanked worse. Both still tanked.
--
AC
catpandaddy
"AC" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:6XUNo.53097$Wk6....@newsfe27.ams2...
Fawlty Towers only lasted for 12 shows total, but people consider it to be a
good series even so!
Your Name
"AC" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:6XUNo.53097$Wk6....@newsfe27.ams2...
I don't know if it's true, but according to the people on the radio
Hasselhoff's show was resurrected from one he did previously (maybe on a
cable channel or similar), which would mean it had more than just two
episodes ... but maybe they were remembering the "Hasselhoff's in England"
shows.
Your Name
"catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote in message
news:ie9dgr$n28$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "AC" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
> news:6XUNo.53097$Wk6....@newsfe27.ams2...
> > Dillon Pyron wrote:
> >> Apparently the David Hasselhof "reality show" has been cancelled after
> >> two episodes. The lead in show (Ozzy?) came in with 1.4 million and
> >> David's show had 740 odd thousand and then a little over 600K.
> >>
> >> Now THAT'S tanking. When you flush 50% of your audience, either the
> >> network screwed up in its positioning or your show sucks. Losing
> >> another almost 18% the next week suggests it wasn't positioning.
> >
> > Yeah, it tanked. This, er, show just tanked worse. Both still tanked.
>
a
> good series even so!
The Star Wars Saga only has six episodes, but people consider it to be one
of the best movie franchises "of all time". :-)
Many good shows never make it past the pilot, and yet the dross of "reality"
TV continues unabated. :-(
Mind you, if you think that's bad, many shows that have already been
cancelled in America are shown on New Zealand TV with a huge amount of hype
("the must see show of the year" kind of advertising idiocy) despite them
knowing full well that there's only a few episodes. :-\
cloud dreamer
Yeah. Look at Firefly. Only 14 episodes.
I'm surprised that they don't plan a full season dvd/bluray release.
It's the type of show that can be popular as a self-contained 20 hour
long story.
..
--
We must change the way we live
Or the climate will do it for us
AC
Well, Serenity did a first rate job of clearing it all up. All together
it works out well enough.
--
AC
AC
Yeah.... and? Several British shows did this, stopping when its right
to, rather than milking it. Are you suggesting either of the above shows
stopped for creative reasons??? Surely not.
--
AC
catpandaddy
"AC" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
So where does Firefly fit in on this spectrum here? It wasn't stopped for
creative reasons, but also wasn't a poor quality show, so we need a third
category there.
cloud dreamer
Low ratings.
..
catpandaddy
"cloud dreamer" <dont....@the.messenger> wrote in message
news:lpadnVv41YQUwpTQ...@supernews.com...
A good show that tanked and was revived by a movie, or a bad show that
tanked and was pushed into popularity by a movie.
Then there was Star Trek, given less than three full seasons and was canned,
then forced into syndication by fanmail campaign, became a franchise, made a
bunch of movies half of which were good and half of which weren't, then
flamed out with two series too many.
cloud dreamer
It was a good show that got cancelled and the fan outrage got it a movie.
>
> Then there was Star Trek, given less than three full seasons and was
> canned, then forced into syndication by fanmail campaign, became a
> franchise, made a bunch of movies half of which were good and half of
> which weren't, then flamed out with two series too many.
The fanmail got it the third season not syndication. NBC threw the third
season into a bad time slot to ensure its demise.
It went into syndication domestically and internationally in an attempt
to recoup losses and as a result, generated a cult following. That cult
following got the movies.
The Wrath of Khan's financial and critical success ensured it would be
around a while.
..
catpandaddy
"cloud dreamer" <dont....@the.messenger> wrote in message
And then Paramount tried to sell the ideas of "Voyager" and "Enterprise" to
the network execs, who never suspected they were being played for victims in
the studio's greedy "Khan-game"... but by then they were a bunch of
khan-artists. ;o)
AC
I honestly dont know. Firstly, I don't even begin to pretend to
understand US TV decision making. I'm sure, however, it shoots its self
in the foot by being so quick to dump shows. In the UK there is more
willingness to let a show build an audience and find its feet.
I wouldn't mind betting that many British shows people regard as classic
would not have made it that far in the US.
I would guess, that had Firefly been British, it would have survived. It
would have had less episodes and been lower budget, but it would have
had time to establish. I would add that I would not say that's an
automatic thing for any failed "good" US show. I think Firefly was
pretty unique. It was a show like Babylon 5, in that it is a scifi set
show that can draw non scifi fans.
--
AC
AC
It was a bloody good show that people didn't have a real chance to get
in to. I believe that had they committed to 2 seasons, it would have
become very successful. The movie was the icing on the cake. It also
shows how good the series would have been.
>
> Then there was Star Trek, given less than three full seasons and was
> canned, then forced into syndication by fanmail campaign, became a
> franchise, made a bunch of movies half of which were good and half of
> which weren't, then flamed out with two series too many.
>
>
I don't understand the Star Trek thing. I like the show and would
consider myself a minor fan, but how and why it took the journey it did
is a complete mystery to me.
--
AC
AC
Never understood the hostility towards Voyager and Enterprise. IMHO,
they were great mass market throwaway space based scifi. Pulp-Scifi
perhaps? TOS and TNG were never more than that, so I don't see what's
wrong with the other two.
As a insanely biased Babylon 5 fan, I have deliberately left DS9 out.
--
AC
Your Name
"AC" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
> catpandaddy wrote:
> >
> > So where does Firefly fit in on this spectrum here? It wasn't stopped
> > for creative reasons, but also wasn't a poor quality show, so we need a
> > third category there.
>
> I honestly dont know. Firstly, I don't even begin to pretend to
> understand US TV decision making. I'm sure, however, it shoots its self
> in the foot by being so quick to dump shows. In the UK there is more
> willingness to let a show build an audience and find its feet.
>
> I wouldn't mind betting that many British shows people regard as classic
> would not have made it that far in the US.
Most British shows wouldn't last one episode in America ... most Americans
simply "do not get it".
> I would guess, that had Firefly been British, it would have survived. It
> would have had less episodes and been lower budget, but it would have
> had time to establish. I would add that I would not say that's an
> automatic thing for any failed "good" US show. I think Firefly was
> pretty unique. It was a show like Babylon 5, in that it is a scifi set
> show that can draw non scifi fans.
I've never seen Firefly, but Babblealong 5 was abysmally boring. I don't
many, if any, "no scifi fans" were interested in watching it ... most scifi
fans I know weren't even interested in watching it (in fact a couple of
people I know watched it solely to see the Amiga-driven special effects
because they orked or were interested in that area).
Your Name
"AC" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
> catpandaddy wrote:
> >
> > Then there was Star Trek, given less than three full seasons and was
> > canned, then forced into syndication by fanmail campaign, became a
> > franchise, made a bunch of movies half of which were good and half of
> > which weren't, then flamed out with two series too many.
>
> I don't understand the Star Trek thing. I like the show and would
> consider myself a minor fan, but how and why it took the journey it did
> is a complete mystery to me.
That was "thanks" to a bunch of morons in charge, as usual. The idiotic
decisions and handiwork of the fools in Paramount management and the two
morons who were put in charge of the franchise: Rick Berman and Branon Braga
(aka Beavis & Butthead) - they shouldn't even have been allowed to be the
studio's toilet cleaners. Neither knew what "Star Trek" was and neither was
interested in making "Star Trek", and at least one is reported as saying as
much! All they wanted was to have a big name show on their CVs so that they
could then make their own shows ... which unsurprisingly failed miserably
when they were given the chance. Their greatest supidity was to try to make
a "non-Trek, Trek show", which resulted in the ill-fitting nonsense called
"Enterprise". (These two idiots also produced a number of equally stupid
disciples to go around destroying existing franchises, one of which of
course is Ron Moore.)
Even worse, some idiot in high places decided it was then a good idea to
"reboot" Star Trek as a movie (which was basically what "Enterprise" tried
and failed to do on TV) with the usual silly ideas that make it barely
recognisable, and now there are two conflicting franchises under the "Star
Trek" name.
Your Name
"AC" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
> catpandaddy wrote:
> >
> > And then Paramount tried to sell the ideas of "Voyager" and "Enterprise"
> > to the network execs, who never suspected they were being played for
> > victims in the studio's greedy "Khan-game"... but by then they were a
> > bunch of khan-artists. ;o)
>
> Never understood the hostility towards Voyager and Enterprise. IMHO,
> they were great mass market throwaway space based scifi. Pulp-Scifi
> perhaps? TOS and TNG were never more than that, so I don't see what's
> wrong with the other two.
>
> As a insanely biased Babylon 5 fan, I have deliberately left DS9 out.
There's little wrong with Voyager or Deep Space Nine as an idea, although it
got bogged down by the people in charge not really knowing what to do and
having no story ideas (hence a lot of playing in the holodeck and time
travel stories ... anything that could use the "big red Reset" button to
make the entire episode a waste of time).
Enterprise on the other hand was complete garbage from the start. Trying to
make a "non-Trek Trek show" was so idiotic that anyone with a brain knew is
was doomed. Basically a worthless attempt to "reboot" Star Trek, it simply
pee'd all over the existing Star Trek history and had lots of stupid and
ill-fitting rubbish thrown in (it suffered the same fate as Smallville, with
writers not having any ideas, so simply throwing in everything they could -
in this case meeting races that were unknown in proper Star Trek timelines,
for example). The "best" thing about it was the ending that smacked everyone
who had bothered to watch it in the face by using another "big red Reset"
button and pretneding the whole thing was basically a dream.
Mr. B-o-B
>
> Never understood the hostility towards Voyager and Enterprise. IMHO, they
> were great mass market throwaway space based scifi. Pulp-Scifi perhaps? TOS
> and TNG were never more than that, so I don't see what's wrong with the other
> two.
>
> As a insanely biased Babylon 5 fan, I have deliberately left DS9 out.
Come on! DS9 rocked. Sure it was slow to start, but it developed. The
Dominion..... memories.... Good Stuff.
Voyager on the other hand was a pile of crap. I remember tuning in each
week living in denial that it was horrible. Telling myself that it can't
be, and that it will get better. Never happened. A politically
correct/affirmative action Star Trek should never have been. A female
captain. A female engineer. A Black Vulcan. A goofy Indian (feather) as
#1. A flunky as ensign. Shall I go on. Every sub plot having
something do do with feelings. WTF? Your supposed to be bad
ass Federation Soldiers. Feelings? Really? Horrible.
Enterprise. The pain! The first episode I was so excited. I thought
they would do us right, and create a decent show. It's on, quick turn it
up......WTF.... I couldn't believe my ears. They opening music was about
all I could take. I went down hill fast from there....
Thanks for listening!
Mr. B-o-B
AC
> "AC"<x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
> news:xRmOo.33239$jO1....@newsfe07.ams2...
>> catpandaddy wrote:
>>>
>>> So where does Firefly fit in on this spectrum here? It wasn't stopped
>>> for creative reasons, but also wasn't a poor quality show, so we need a
>>> third category there.
>>
>> I honestly dont know. Firstly, I don't even begin to pretend to
>> understand US TV decision making. I'm sure, however, it shoots its self
>> in the foot by being so quick to dump shows. In the UK there is more
>> willingness to let a show build an audience and find its feet.
>>
>> I wouldn't mind betting that many British shows people regard as classic
>> would not have made it that far in the US.
>
> Most British shows wouldn't last one episode in America ... most Americans
> simply "do not get it".
You miss the point.
>
>
>
>> I would guess, that had Firefly been British, it would have survived. It
>> would have had less episodes and been lower budget, but it would have
>> had time to establish. I would add that I would not say that's an
>> automatic thing for any failed "good" US show. I think Firefly was
>> pretty unique. It was a show like Babylon 5, in that it is a scifi set
>> show that can draw non scifi fans.
>
> I've never seen Firefly, but Babblealong 5 was abysmally boring. I don't
> many, if any, "no scifi fans" were interested in watching it ... most scifi
> fans I know weren't even interested in watching it (in fact a couple of
> people I know watched it solely to see the Amiga-driven special effects
> because they orked or were interested in that area).
I'm not sure what you like then. You slate reset shows like ST, don't
like the arc shows like B5 and FF. Not sure what's left.
--
AC
AC
> AC cried from the depths of the abyss...
>
>>
>> Never understood the hostility towards Voyager and Enterprise. IMHO,
>> they were great mass market throwaway space based scifi. Pulp-Scifi
>> perhaps? TOS and TNG were never more than that, so I don't see what's
>> wrong with the other two.
>>
>> As a insanely biased Babylon 5 fan, I have deliberately left DS9 out.
>
> Come on! DS9 rocked. Sure it was slow to start, but it developed. The
> Dominion..... memories.... Good Stuff.
It was the best of ST, but ripped off B5 horribly.
>
> Voyager on the other hand was a pile of crap. I remember tuning in each
> week living in denial that it was horrible. Telling myself that it can't
> be, and that it will get better. Never happened. A politically
> correct/affirmative action Star Trek should never have been. A female
> captain. A female engineer. A Black Vulcan. A goofy Indian (feather) as
> #1. A flunky as ensign. Shall I go on. Every sub plot having something
> do do with feelings. WTF? Your supposed to be bad ass Federation
> Soldiers. Feelings? Really? Horrible.
You don't like women and feelings?
>
> Enterprise. The pain! The first episode I was so excited. I thought they
> would do us right, and create a decent show. It's on, quick turn it
> up......WTF.... I couldn't believe my ears. They opening music was about
> all I could take. I went down hill fast from there....
So, the whole thing was crap because of the music?
>
> Thanks for listening!
>
> Mr. B-o-B
>
--
AC
AC
Hasselhoff's in England? Is that considered an act of war?
--
AC
Mr. B-o-B
> Mr. B-o-B wrote:
>> AC cried from the depths of the abyss...
>>
>>>
>>> Never understood the hostility towards Voyager and Enterprise. IMHO,
>>> they were great mass market throwaway space based scifi. Pulp-Scifi
>>> perhaps? TOS and TNG were never more than that, so I don't see what's
>>> wrong with the other two.
>>>
>>> As a insanely biased Babylon 5 fan, I have deliberately left DS9 out.
>>
>> Come on! DS9 rocked. Sure it was slow to start, but it developed. The
>> Dominion..... memories.... Good Stuff.
>
> It was the best of ST, but ripped off B5 horribly.
>
Can't argue with you here.
>>
>> Voyager on the other hand was a pile of crap. I remember tuning in each
>> week living in denial that it was horrible. Telling myself that it can't
>> be, and that it will get better. Never happened. A politically
>> correct/affirmative action Star Trek should never have been. A female
>> captain. A female engineer. A Black Vulcan. A goofy Indian (feather) as
>> #1. A flunky as ensign. Shall I go on. Every sub plot having something
>> do do with feelings. WTF? Your supposed to be bad ass Federation
>> Soldiers. Feelings? Really? Horrible.
>
> You don't like women and feelings?
Please. The whole thing was ridiculous. Feelings. I thought I
was watching Star Trek. Didn't realize I was watching Opera for nerds.
Come on! I want ice cold Federation officers without a moment of
hesitation firing all phazers. I know your family just died,
but I need you to get it together & man the weapons station ensign. NOW!
Kapeesh?
>
>>
>> Enterprise. The pain! The first episode I was so excited. I thought they
>> would do us right, and create a decent show. It's on, quick turn it
>> up......WTF.... I couldn't believe my ears. They opening music was about
>> all I could take. I went down hill fast from there....
>
> So, the whole thing was crap because of the music?
Yes. The music was as bad as the show.
>
>
> --
> AC
>
Mr. B-o-B
>
> Even worse, some idiot in high places decided it was then a good idea to
> "reboot" Star Trek as a movie (which was basically what "Enterprise" tried
> and failed to do on TV) with the usual silly ideas that make it barely
> recognisable, and now there are two conflicting franchises under the "Star
> Trek" name.
>
I have mixed opinions on this. One one hand I agree. On the other hand I
feel this was kind of a cool thing. The original crew is too old now
(many dead),
but everyone loves them. With the story what it was in the movie they are
now free to do what they want without conflicting with any of the existing
story/time lines. So we get to look forward to seeing Kirk in action every
few years. I can live with that.
Bruce Burden
:
: Never understood the hostility towards Voyager and Enterprise. IMHO,
:
Vigrs problem is that the writers ran out of ideas before
they managed to return home. Typical Hollywood.
As a result, it fell into the entirely too predictable rut
of "how are we going to destroy the ship this week, and babble
our way out of it".
Enterprise also suffered from the time travel bullshit
syndrome, and only Capitan Leaper could save the day. Barf. It
was hard enough to accept Bacula as the capitan, but the fixation
on bad writing was the real killer. The smartest thing they did
was put Balock in a tight uni...
Bruce
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I like bad!" Bruce Burden Austin, TX.
- Thuganlitha
The Power and the Prophet
Robert Don Hughes
Your Name
"AC" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
> Mr. B-o-B wrote:
> > AC cried from the depths of the abyss...
> >
> > would do us right, and create a decent show. It's on, quick turn it
> > up......WTF.... I couldn't believe my ears. They opening music was about
> > all I could take. I went down hill fast from there....
>
> So, the whole thing was crap because of the music?
Nope, but the music set the tone of it not actually being a proper "Star
Trek" show, which of course is what the Beavis & Butthead were stupidly
trying to achieve (and why they purposely left "Star Trek" out of the show's
title).
Come to think of it, that's about the only thing they did do "right" - they
did actually create a "non-Trek Trek show", and then brainlessly sat there
trying to work out why neither most non-Trek fans and most Trek fans weren't
watching the drivel, and eventually came up with the idotic idea that "Stra
Trek" needed a "rest" ... in reality it simply needs someone who actually
knows what "Star Trek" is, wants to make "Star Trek" shows, and has some
real talent in coming up with ideas that fit within the franchise.
Unfortunately the managemen fools at Paramount have now destroyed any chance
of that happening. :-(
Your Name
"AC" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
I only read a couple of blurbs about it ... apparently it was some silly
"reality" TV show following David Hasselhoff and his daughters on a trip to
England. YAWN!!
Your Name
"Mr. B-o-B" <mr.che...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:alpine.LNX.2.00.1...@conan.grunners.com...
There are infinite stories within the Star Trek universe that could be told
(if they actually found writers with proper creative talent), they could
even do mvoies / shows about Kirk and co. with new actors ... but there's no
need to make idiotic changes that don't fit with the established history
(like having all the characters at the academy at the same time - it's "Star
Trek" not "Dawson's Creek"!).
Your Name
"AC" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
> Your Name wrote:
> > "AC"<x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
> > news:xRmOo.33239$jO1....@newsfe07.ams2...
> >>
It
> >> would have had less episodes and been lower budget, but it would have
> >> had time to establish. I would add that I would not say that's an
> >> automatic thing for any failed "good" US show. I think Firefly was
> >> pretty unique. It was a show like Babylon 5, in that it is a scifi set
> >> show that can draw non scifi fans.
> >
> > I've never seen Firefly, but Babblealong 5 was abysmally boring. I don't
> > many, if any, "no scifi fans" were interested in watching it ... most
scifi
> > fans I know weren't even interested in watching it (in fact a couple of
> > people I know watched it solely to see the Amiga-driven special effects
> > because they orked or were interested in that area).
>
> I'm not sure what you like then. You slate reset shows like ST, don't
> like the arc shows like B5 and FF. Not sure what's left.
Here we go with the not being able to read. :-(
I said I had never seen Firefly, not even a single second of it ... I have
also not really read anything about it, so I can't say whether I like it or
not.
I also never said anything about "arc shows". Babblealong 5 was simply
b-o-r-i-n-g. The only real problem with "arc shows" is that they lose
viewers since the casual watcher can't be bothered watching EVERY single
episode just to keep up. That's why most good shows tend to be episodic so
casual viewers can tune in whenever they want, and often have an on-going
background story for the real fans.
The real Star Trek shows were fine (with the exception of some lazily
written episodes and the religious mumbo-jumbo in Deep Space Nine).
Enterprise and the silly "reboot" movie are simply garbage that don't fit in
the "Star Trek" franchise in anything but name.
If you're counting shows that are now longer running, then there's plenty of
other sci-fi shows left.
AC
I see you confuse "boring" with "cant be bothered". Fair enough. Im
prepared to comit for quality. Compared to any ST, B5 was quality. It
was only boring, if as you say, you couldn't be bothered. It was more
exciting than anything ST ever did.
No idea what you mean by "real star trek". I don't see the difference
between an average eps of TOS and Enterprise. Don't see what was lazy
about DS9 apart from nicking the general premise of the show.
--
AC
AC
> AC<x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
> :
> : Never understood the hostility towards Voyager and Enterprise. IMHO,
> :
> Vigrs problem is that the writers ran out of ideas before
> they managed to return home. Typical Hollywood.
>
> As a result, it fell into the entirely too predictable rut
> of "how are we going to destroy the ship this week, and babble
> our way out of it".
Yeah, normal ST then. Nothing against it, liked it, but I dont see how
that was different to TOS or TNG.
>
> Enterprise also suffered from the time travel bullshit
> syndrome, and only Capitan Leaper could save the day. Barf. It
> was hard enough to accept Bacula as the capitan, but the fixation
> on bad writing was the real killer. The smartest thing they did
> was put Balock in a tight uni...
>
> Bruce
"Bad writing" is so over used. What does it mean? People go on about
lazy, but this phrase seems the laziest of all.
Never had a problem with time travel plots. I dont see how they are
intrinsically bad.
I will agree that Bacula was hard to take.
I thought Enterprise was over ambitious and they got it a bit wrong, but
nothing offensive.
--
AC
AC
Sounds terrible. I apologise for British immigration control.
--
AC
Your Name
"AC" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
The few episodes I saw were definitely b-o-r-i-n-g ... lots of political /
quasi-religious garbage and hopeless silent space battles with only ballet
music for accompaniment. :-(
> No idea what you mean by "real star trek". I don't see the difference
> between an average eps of TOS and Enterprise. Don't see what was lazy
> about DS9 apart from nicking the general premise of the show.
The laziness in both Deep Space Nine and Voyager came from writers who
couldn't be bothered coming up with stories that actually fit into the Star
Trek universe, so instead they had the entire command staff playing silly
games in the Holodeck ... which was moronically stupid in Deep Space Nine
when the station is sitting on THE most strategic point during a war!
Enterprise simply ignored everything that was already established and tried
to make things up as it went along. Just like the talentless hacks writing
Smallville, they simply chucked everything from Star Trek into the show,
screwing up the time line.
Your Name
"AC" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
> Bruce Burden wrote:
> > AC<x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
> > :
> > : Never understood the hostility towards Voyager and Enterprise. IMHO,
> > :
> > Vigrs problem is that the writers ran out of ideas before
> > they managed to return home. Typical Hollywood.
> >
> > As a result, it fell into the entirely too predictable rut
> > of "how are we going to destroy the ship this week, and babble
> > our way out of it".
>
> Yeah, normal ST then. Nothing against it, liked it, but I dont see how
> that was different to TOS or TNG.
>
> >
> > Enterprise also suffered from the time travel bullshit
> > syndrome, and only Capitan Leaper could save the day. Barf. It
> > was hard enough to accept Bacula as the capitan, but the fixation
> > on bad writing was the real killer. The smartest thing they did
> > was put Balock in a tight uni...
> >
> > Bruce
>
> "Bad writing" is so over used. What does it mean? People go on about
> lazy, but this phrase seems the laziest of all.
>
> Never had a problem with time travel plots. I dont see how they are
> intrinsically bad.
They are very rarely done well and end up simply as a confused, error-ridden
waste of time ... literally. The same happens with the "big red reset
button" episodes, at the end they simply push the button making the entire
episode a waste of time since it never happened ... it's a lazy writer's
escape hatch. :-(
> I will agree that Bacula was hard to take.
>
> I thought Enterprise was over ambitious and they got it a bit wrong, but
> nothing offensive.
Nothing offensive, unless you're an actual fan of "Star Trek", unlike the
Beavis & Butthead twins who were in charge.
Bruce Burden
: Bruce Burden wrote:
:
: Yeah, normal ST then. Nothing against it, liked it, but I dont see how
Probably due to the practical limitations of the day, TOS
didn't actually show the Enterprise being destroyed. Granted,
Scotty usually pulled some babble from his backside, but that,
to me, is greatly different from actually destroying the ship,
then invoking parallel universes, time travel, dreams, etc. to
explain why everybody is fine and everything is okay.
I'll grant you, the difference between TOS and Voyage to
the Bottom of the Sea isn't very much. Unfortunately, things
haven't greatly improved in 4 decades, either.
:
: "Bad writing" is so over used. What does it mean? People go on about
: lazy, but this phrase seems the laziest of all.
:
Okay, I'll go with that. When you recycle previously used
scripts, it isn't really "writing", is it? :-) Just changes
the babble used to explain away this episodes disaster/miracle,
and call it good. Writing. Okay, no.
:
: Never had a problem with time travel plots. I dont see how they are
: intrinsically bad.
:
Time travel, in part, may depend on whether you view the
universe as a singular event, or as a infinite number, where
each decision results in a branch on a decision tree.
So, does "time travel" allow you to alter a past event and
change the singular universe, or does "time travel" simply allow
you to shift which decision branch you are on?
My "problem" with time travel is that is too often used, and
too often it is used to explain away an untenable story line. So,
"bad writing" may well be better explained as "bad production",
where the producer(s)/director didn't think through the ramification's
of the script (or a series of scripts) before producing it/them.
I think this often happens when you have a stable of writers,
and nobody has a "big picture", so the characters and story line
tend to "wobble" depending on which script is produced. I think
the latest BG suffered from this, as the second tier characters
were too erratic for me - Lee Adama being my primary evidence.
This character seemingly changed his core values twice a season.
:
: I thought Enterprise was over ambitious and they got it a bit wrong, but
: nothing offensive.
:
The orange men group was hard to take, but then, I missed
a lot of season 1, so perhaps their motivations were explained
before I started watching. All I know is they were supposed to
stop the Federation from being formed, and there were "time cops"
aboard NX-01 to ensure the purity of the time line. Predictably,
the time cops failed, and Capitan Leaper had to save the day.
Yeah team.
Anyway, some of the best "Enterprise" episodes, I thought,
did involve time travel and parallel universes. The tribble tie-
in, with Bacula tossing the tribble that hits Kirk in the end
was well done, as was the ISS tie in.
The difference? Probably that time travel and parallel uni's
weren't the mechanism to rescue an episode that found itself
painted into a corner.
Bruce
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I like bad!" Bruce Burden Austin, TX.
- Thuganlitha
Your Name
"catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote in message
news:ie9dgr$n28$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> Fawlty Towers only lasted for 12 shows total, but people consider it to be
a
> good series even so!
By coincidence I saw an interview with John Cleese last night. According to
him, America has tired, and failed, to do their own version of Fawlty Towers
three times. In one version they decided to get rid of the Basil Fawlty
character completely (all his lines were basically given to the Cybil
character played by Bea Arthur). He also said one attempt later became
Cheers.
There have been versions made in other European countries with more
succcess. The German version simply remade everything EXACTLY the same
(right down to the actions), with just the language translation. The Germans
apparently also love the "don't talk about the War" episode.
The same show also had an interview with an Australian actress who said
America had tried to make their own version of the Australian "comedy" show
Kath & Kim - another disaster, but not a surprising one since the original
was also utter drivel.
RT
> catpandaddy wrote:
> > "cloud dreamer" <dont....@the.messenger> wrote in message
> >>> "AC" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
> >>>> catpandaddy wrote:
> >>>>> "AC" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
> >
> > Then there was Star Trek, given less than three full seasons and was
> > canned, then forced into syndication by fanmail campaign, became a
> > franchise, made a bunch of movies half of which were good and half of
> > which weren't, then flamed out with two series too many.
> >
> I don't understand the Star Trek thing. I like the show and would
> consider myself a minor fan, but how and why it took the journey it did
> is a complete mystery to me.
That's a much discussed, or used to be discussed, bit of speculation. One
that I recall somewhat and that made sense was that the show, when it came
out in the 60s, a turbulent time, said we made it through those times. And
went on to greater things. Etc
There was a bureaucracy, aliens, space ships, and a nearly unlimited canvas.
The movies, and then TNG, were a continuation thanks to an existing fan
base and the addition of new fans. Ditto Voyager and DS9 and Enterprise.
RT
>
> "AC" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
> > >
> > > And then Paramount tried to sell the ideas of "Voyager" and "Enterprise"
> > > to the network execs, who never suspected they were being played for
> > > victims in the studio's greedy "Khan-game"... but by then they were a
> > > bunch of khan-artists. ;o)
> >
> > Never understood the hostility towards Voyager and Enterprise. IMHO,
> > they were great mass market throwaway space based scifi. Pulp-Scifi
> > perhaps? TOS and TNG were never more than that, so I don't see what's
> > wrong with the other two.
> >
> > As a insanely biased Babylon 5 fan, I have deliberately left DS9 out.
>
> There's little wrong with Voyager or Deep Space Nine as an idea, although it
> got bogged down by the people in charge not really knowing what to do and
> having no story ideas (hence a lot of playing in the holodeck and time
Huh? I watched those from time to time - whatlots of playing on the holodeck?
> travel stories ... anything that could use the "big red Reset" button to
> make the entire episode a waste of time).
>
> Enterprise on the other hand was complete garbage from the start. Trying to
> make a "non-Trek Trek show" was so idiotic that anyone with a brain knew is
> was doomed. Basically a worthless attempt to "reboot" Star Trek, it simply
> pee'd all over the existing Star Trek history and had lots of stupid and
> ill-fitting rubbish thrown in (it suffered the same fate as Smallville, with
Never watched Smallville. The short viewings I did confirmed that it was
just a lot of teen angst with powers.
RT
>
> "AC" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
>
> > between an average eps of TOS and Enterprise. Don't see what was lazy
> > about DS9 apart from nicking the general premise of the show.
>
> The laziness in both Deep Space Nine and Voyager came from writers who
> couldn't be bothered coming up with stories that actually fit into the Star
> Trek universe, so instead they had the entire command staff playing silly
> games in the Holodeck ... which was moronically stupid in Deep Space Nine
What playing in the holodeck? The ST shows frmo TNG on (except of course for
Enterprise) used it here and there, but making up the bulk of the series? Did
you really watch at all?
Your Name
"RT" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:4D0DA0E5...@hotmMOVEail.com...
> Your Name wrote:
> >
> > "AC" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
> > > catpandaddy wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And then Paramount tried to sell the ideas of "Voyager" and
"Enterprise"
> > > > to the network execs, who never suspected they were being played for
> > > > victims in the studio's greedy "Khan-game"... but by then they were
a
> > > > bunch of khan-artists. ;o)
> > >
> > > Never understood the hostility towards Voyager and Enterprise. IMHO,
> > > they were great mass market throwaway space based scifi. Pulp-Scifi
> > > perhaps? TOS and TNG were never more than that, so I don't see what's
> > > wrong with the other two.
> > >
> > > As a insanely biased Babylon 5 fan, I have deliberately left DS9 out.
> >
> > There's little wrong with Voyager or Deep Space Nine as an idea,
although it
> > got bogged down by the people in charge not really knowing what to do
and
> > having no story ideas (hence a lot of playing in the holodeck and time
>
> Huh? I watched those from time to time - whatlots of playing on the
holodeck?
Obviously you must have missed the holod(r)eck episodes ... which makes you
very lucky.
The main ones were Janeway and her fantasy Irish village, and in Deep Space
Nine there was that silly holographic nightclub singer who they all became
friends with ... but there were others.
> > travel stories ... anything that could use the "big red Reset" button to
> > make the entire episode a waste of time).
> >
> > Enterprise on the other hand was complete garbage from the start. Trying
to
> > make a "non-Trek Trek show" was so idiotic that anyone with a brain knew
is
> > was doomed. Basically a worthless attempt to "reboot" Star Trek, it
simply
> > pee'd all over the existing Star Trek history and had lots of stupid and
> > ill-fitting rubbish thrown in (it suffered the same fate as Smallville,
with
>
> Never watched Smallville. The short viewings I did confirmed that it was
> just a lot of teen angst with powers.
Smallville started off okay as "Clark Kent's adventures in Smallville before
becoming Superman" ... but as usual the writers quickly ean out of real
ideas (as well as the show going on for far too many seasons or not starting
early enough in Clark's life) and started stupidly dragging pretty much
every character from the Superman franchise into Smallville, destroying any
even remote resemblance to the established timelines. The show simply became
garbage after about season 2 or 3.
Enterprise did much the same thing, pulling in races like the Ferengi that
aren't meant to be known until much later in the established timeline.
Apparently the lazy writers tried to get around the problem by silly things
like the Enterprise crew never knowing the name of the race, etc. :-\
Your Name
"RT" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> Your Name wrote:
> >
> > "AC" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
> >
> > > No idea what you mean by "real star trek". I don't see the difference
> > > between an average eps of TOS and Enterprise. Don't see what was lazy
> > > about DS9 apart from nicking the general premise of the show.
> >
> > The laziness in both Deep Space Nine and Voyager came from writers who
> > couldn't be bothered coming up with stories that actually fit into the
Star
> > Trek universe, so instead they had the entire command staff playing
silly
> > games in the Holodeck ... which was moronically stupid in Deep Space
Nine
>
> What playing in the holodeck? The ST shows frmo TNG on (except of course
for
> Enterprise) used it here and there, but making up the bulk of the series?
Did
> you really watch at all?
When did I say the holod(r)eck episodes made "up the bulk of the series"??
Al I said was they were used by lazy writers because they couldn't think of
any real stories. There were far to many holod(r)eck, time travel, and "big
red reset button" episodes, especially as the shows got into the later
seasons.
And as above, having the ENTIRE command staff playing silly games in the
holodeck when the space station is situated at THE most important place
during a war is plain idiotic and senseless. :-(
Zeb Carter
enterprise - fair enough. Why can't it exist in a different continuity
than TOS? Maybe it's a better fit with J.J. Abrams' Star Trek movie.
Getting back on topic, SyFy Channel is run by a bunch of idiots who
don't like science fiction like Caprica or Stargate Universe. I feel
they would have cancelled Star Trek:TOS in its first season if it had
aired now. They want horror and wrestling and stupid reality shows like
Fear Factor and Scare Tactics and the various paranormal shows.
SyFy is a cable show. It's not an over the air station and Nielsen
ratings should not apply.
catpandaddy
"Your Name" <your...@isp.com> wrote in message
news:iek88h$13f$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>
>
> Enterprise did much the same thing, pulling in races like the Ferengi that
> aren't meant to be known until much later in the established timeline.
> Apparently the lazy writers tried to get around the problem by silly
> things
> like the Enterprise crew never knowing the name of the race, etc. :-\
Actually that's the one part where I will part company and say it's might
not be as farfetched as some of the critics say it is. The thought occured
to me just in this moment, to imagine all the thousands of strangers I've
unknowingly crossed paths with in the course of just a month of living. If
tomorrow I were to get to know someone new, I don't think it would even
register that a few years ago we were both in one of many shoestores in
various towns or cities or burbs in and around the area. And the galaxy is
a much larger place than a shoestore.
I'm not rabidly attached to this idea, so no talk of "idiots who can't read
for comprehension" please. As I said, it's just a thought that occured to
me today in the moment. And so I felt like putting it forth for dissection.
No more, no less.
Your Name
"Zeb Carter" <zeb_c...@ymail.com> wrote in message
news:yhpPo.11343$lL1...@newsfe21.iad...
You mean an silly "remake" that lazily re-uses the same name, but includes
lots of idiotic, ill-fitting changes because the makers are too lazy to
actually create their own work, so simply steal and destroy someone else's
work instead. Writing off the idiocy as a "parallel universe" or something
does not "fix" the problem either. :-(
Enterprise was meant to be a "non-Trek Trek show" (obviously an idiotic idea
from day one) and JJ Abrams movie is a silly "reboot". If these people want
to make their own franchise, then they should make their OWN franchise. The
reality is that most of Hollyweird these days are just talentless hacks
and/or controlled by brainless management suits. :-(
> Getting back on topic, SyFy Channel is run by a bunch of idiots who
> don't like science fiction like Caprica or Stargate Universe. I feel
> they would have cancelled Star Trek:TOS in its first season if it had
> aired now. They want horror and wrestling and stupid reality shows like
> Fear Factor and Scare Tactics and the various paranormal shows.
>
> SyFy is a cable show. It's not an over the air station and Nielsen
> ratings should not apply.
Neilsen ratings should never apply ... they're inaccurate guesswork (at
best). Yet again it the brainless management suits who can't make a real
decision, so have to rely on a crutch that everyone with a brain knows is
meaningless (including no doubt Neilsen themselves!).
Your Name
> "Your Name" <your...@isp.com> wrote in message
> news:iek88h$13f$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> >
> > Enterprise did much the same thing, pulling in races like the Ferengi
that
> > aren't meant to be known until much later in the established timeline.
> > Apparently the lazy writers tried to get around the problem by silly
> > things like the Enterprise crew never knowing the name of the race, etc.
:-\
>
> Actually that's the one part where I will part company and say it's might
> not be as farfetched as some of the critics say it is. The thought
occured
> to me just in this moment, to imagine all the thousands of strangers I've
> unknowingly crossed paths with in the course of just a month of living.
If
> tomorrow I were to get to know someone new, I don't think it would even
> register that a few years ago we were both in one of many shoestores in
> various towns or cities or burbs in and around the area. And the galaxy
is
> a much larger place than a shoestore.
That could make some sense ... except that everything the Enterprise does
would be sent back in reports to HQ (and Vulcan HQ), so would be known by
numerous people as well as the Enterprise entire crew. It's also an
exploration organisation, so meeting a new race would almost certainly mean
they would try to find out more about them, not just forget them until they
turn up again 200+ years later.
Bruce Burden
:
: SyFy is a cable show. It's not an over the air station and Nielsen
: ratings should not apply.
:
But syfy is _owned_ by NBC. 'nouf said.
AC
> AC<x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
> : Bruce Burden wrote:
> :
> : Yeah, normal ST then. Nothing against it, liked it, but I dont see how
> : that was different to TOS or TNG.
> :
> Probably due to the practical limitations of the day, TOS
> didn't actually show the Enterprise being destroyed. Granted,
> Scotty usually pulled some babble from his backside, but that,
> to me, is greatly different from actually destroying the ship,
> then invoking parallel universes, time travel, dreams, etc. to
> explain why everybody is fine and everything is okay.
I dont actually recall that happening as you describe.
>
> I'll grant you, the difference between TOS and Voyage to
> the Bottom of the Sea isn't very much. Unfortunately, things
> haven't greatly improved in 4 decades, either.
> :
> : "Bad writing" is so over used. What does it mean? People go on about
> : lazy, but this phrase seems the laziest of all.
> :
> Okay, I'll go with that. When you recycle previously used
> scripts, it isn't really "writing", is it? :-) Just changes
> the babble used to explain away this episodes disaster/miracle,
> and call it good. Writing. Okay, no.
You know there are only a limited number of basic plots, right? So, once
you are over 20 or so episodes, you cant help but repeat. All you can do
is try a different angle, and thats exactly what they do. Now, you can
either be charitable and accept that, or trot out the lazy "recycle"
argument, as you have done.
> :
> : Never had a problem with time travel plots. I dont see how they are
> : intrinsically bad.
> :
> Time travel, in part, may depend on whether you view the
> universe as a singular event, or as a infinite number, where
> each decision results in a branch on a decision tree.
>
> So, does "time travel" allow you to alter a past event and
> change the singular universe, or does "time travel" simply allow
> you to shift which decision branch you are on?
Well, no one knows, hense all the fiction written about it.
>
> My "problem" with time travel is that is too often used, and
> too often it is used to explain away an untenable story line. So,
> "bad writing" may well be better explained as "bad production",
> where the producer(s)/director didn't think through the ramification's
> of the script (or a series of scripts) before producing it/them.
Rubbish, normally its an intrinsic part of the plot.
>
> I think this often happens when you have a stable of writers,
> and nobody has a "big picture", so the characters and story line
> tend to "wobble" depending on which script is produced. I think
> the latest BG suffered from this, as the second tier characters
> were too erratic for me - Lee Adama being my primary evidence.
> This character seemingly changed his core values twice a season.
Ok, totally agree about character inconsistency. But that only really
matters with arced shows. And I see you needed BSG as an example.
But, I do accept that point.
> :
> : I thought Enterprise was over ambitious and they got it a bit wrong, but
> : nothing offensive.
> :
> The orange men group was hard to take, but then, I missed
> a lot of season 1, so perhaps their motivations were explained
> before I started watching. All I know is they were supposed to
> stop the Federation from being formed, and there were "time cops"
> aboard NX-01 to ensure the purity of the time line. Predictably,
> the time cops failed, and Capitan Leaper had to save the day.
> Yeah team.
>
> Anyway, some of the best "Enterprise" episodes, I thought,
> did involve time travel and parallel universes. The tribble tie-
> in, with Bacula tossing the tribble that hits Kirk in the end
> was well done, as was the ISS tie in.
Fair play to you on that one.
>
> The difference? Probably that time travel and parallel uni's
> weren't the mechanism to rescue an episode that found itself
> painted into a corner.
I dont *believe* that actually ever happened in ST or any other show.
>
--
AC
AC
No, the political and religious stuff was intrinsic to the whole
motivation of the characters. With out motivation, then everything else
is pointless. It gives the action stuff meaning. Something ST never ever
had.
The space battles were brilliant and better than anything at the time.
They still hold up well to day.
>
>
>
>> No idea what you mean by "real star trek". I don't see the difference
>> between an average eps of TOS and Enterprise. Don't see what was lazy
>> about DS9 apart from nicking the general premise of the show.
>
> The laziness in both Deep Space Nine and Voyager came from writers who
> couldn't be bothered coming up with stories that actually fit into the Star
> Trek universe, so instead they had the entire command staff playing silly
> games in the Holodeck ... which was moronically stupid in Deep Space Nine
> when the station is sitting on THE most strategic point during a war!
Im sorry, but none of that fits. They hardly used the holodeck and what
is wrong with R&R during a war? Do you begrudge soldiers in Iraq etc
some R&R? If they had a holodeck, you can bet your life they would use
it. Are soldiers and their commanders moronically stupid?
And what were these stories that didn't fit the universe? In a whole
universe, anything can happen.
>
> Enterprise simply ignored everything that was already established and tried
> to make things up as it went along.
No, it just made a few mistakes that pissed off fanatical pedants. FOr
those of us who just like the show for the ride, and know that ST has
never been properly consistent, much like Dr Who, it was fine. Not
great, but good enough.
>Just like the talentless hacks writing
> Smallville, they simply chucked everything from Star Trek into the show,
> screwing up the time line.
>
>
Never seen Smallville, not interest to me at all.
--
AC
AC
What's so wrong with that? Why would Janeway have an Irish village
holodeck program? Why shouldn't humans for relationships with highly
complex artificial life forms?
The first fits the character well, so that's good writing and the second
is clearly a great scifi premise.
--
AC
Your Name
They're still boring rubbish today ... as is the confused mess known as
"2001 A Space Oddessy" (although not only because they both share silly
silent space scenes accompanied by dreadful ballet music). :-(
> >> No idea what you mean by "real star trek". I don't see the difference
> >> between an average eps of TOS and Enterprise. Don't see what was lazy
> >> about DS9 apart from nicking the general premise of the show.
> >
> > The laziness in both Deep Space Nine and Voyager came from writers who
> > couldn't be bothered coming up with stories that actually fit into the Star
> > Trek universe, so instead they had the entire command staff playing silly
> > games in the Holodeck ... which was moronically stupid in Deep Space Nine
> > when the station is sitting on THE most strategic point during a war!
>
> Im sorry, but none of that fits. They hardly used the holodeck and what
> is wrong with R&R during a war? Do you begrudge soldiers in Iraq etc
> some R&R? If they had a holodeck, you can bet your life they would use
> it. Are soldiers and their commanders moronically stupid?
R&R, yes, of course that's fine ... but not the ENTIRE command staff at
THE SAME TIME while sitting on THE most strategic point of the whole war.
That's simply idiotic and would never, ever happen.
It wasn't just the holod(r)ek episodes either. Quite often the entire
command staff went off "playing" in the spaceships.
> And what were these stories that didn't fit the universe? In a whole
> universe, anything can happen.
The non-fitting shows were in Enterprise. Voyager and Deep Space Nine (and
a little in The Next Generation) instead used the holod(r)ek and "big red
reset button" approach.
> > Enterprise simply ignored everything that was already established and tried
> > to make things up as it went along.
>
> No, it just made a few mistakes that pissed off fanatical pedants. FOr
> those of us who just like the show for the ride, and know that ST has
> never been properly consistent, much like Dr Who, it was fine. Not
> great, but good enough.
The proper Star Trek shows tried and succeeded in staying (mostly)
consistent. Enterprise cam along and simply pee'd all over the established
facts whenever they felt like it. Abrams new moive is even worse under the
silly moniker of being a "reboot".
Your Name
"AC" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
It suffers the same problem as Deep Space Nine. In Voyager you have a single
ship travelling through completely unknown space ... and yet again ALL the
command staff are often playing silly games in the holod(r)ek at the same
time.
It's also simply an excuse for lazy writers to write whatever they want and
it doesn't really matter that it hasn't really got anything to do with the
"Star Trek" universe (plus of course giving bored actors the chance to play
a different role while still being in the same show).
catpandaddy
Babylon 5 did not use ANY ballet music. Please post a link to even one
single clip that shows a battle being accompanied by a ballet piece, or by
any classical music for that matter.
catpandaddy
"Your Name" <your...@isp.com> wrote in message
news:your.name-221...@203-109-174-244.dial.dyn.ihug.co.nz...
>
> THE SAME TIME while sitting on THE most strategic point of the whole war.
> That's simply idiotic and would never, ever happen.
>
> It wasn't just the holod(r)ek episodes either. Quite often the entire
> command staff went off "playing" in the spaceships.
>
> consistent.
The "proper" Star Trek original series had the ship's highest ranking
personnel going directly into harms way together, nearly each and every
time. TNG at least made a token effort of addressing that by keeping a
tighter rein on the captain's role away from the ship.
I get that things bug you a lot, but the way you present here looks a whole
lot like "YN always right, Rest of the world always wrong, and always
because they are moronic idiots", and I gotta tell you, there's better ways
of going about things than this.
RT
> "RT" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> > > "AC" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
> > > > catpandaddy wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > And then Paramount tried to sell the ideas of "Voyager" and
> "Enterprise"
> > > > > to the network execs, who never suspected they were being played for
> > > > > victims in the studio's greedy "Khan-game"... but by then they were
> a
> > > > > bunch of khan-artists. ;o)
> > > >
> > > > Never understood the hostility towards Voyager and Enterprise. IMHO,
> > > > they were great mass market throwaway space based scifi. Pulp-Scifi
> > > > perhaps? TOS and TNG were never more than that, so I don't see what's
> > > > wrong with the other two.
> > > >
> > > > As a insanely biased Babylon 5 fan, I have deliberately left DS9 out.
> > >
> > > There's little wrong with Voyager or Deep Space Nine as an idea,
> although it
> > > got bogged down by the people in charge not really knowing what to do
> and
> > > having no story ideas (hence a lot of playing in the holodeck and time
> >
> > Huh? I watched those from time to time - whatlots of playing on the
> holodeck?
>
> Obviously you must have missed the holod(r)eck episodes ... which makes you
> very lucky.
I saw a number of them plus significant bits of others. Which episodes
were those such the WHOLE episode was a holodeck thing?
> The main ones were Janeway and her fantasy Irish village, and in Deep Space
> Nine there was that silly holographic nightclub singer who they all became
> friends with ... but there were others.
That's it? A couple of episodes here and there?
> > > travel stories ... anything that could use the "big red Reset" button to
> > > make the entire episode a waste of time).
> > >
> > > Enterprise on the other hand was complete garbage from the start. Trying
> to
> > > make a "non-Trek Trek show" was so idiotic that anyone with a brain knew
> is
> > > was doomed. Basically a worthless attempt to "reboot" Star Trek, it
> simply
> > > pee'd all over the existing Star Trek history and had lots of stupid and
> > > ill-fitting rubbish thrown in (it suffered the same fate as Smallville,
> with
> >
> > Never watched Smallville. The short viewings I did confirmed that it was
> > just a lot of teen angst with powers.
>
> Smallville started off okay as "Clark Kent's adventures in Smallville before
Never watched it. Teenie crap.
RT
Yes? So? In WW2 we had the USO. You're saying there should not have been
recreation for the troops?
RT
> Your Name wrote:
> > "RT"<traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Enterprise was the founding and early days of the Federation.
RT
>
> Bruce Burden wrote:
> > AC<x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
> > : Bruce Burden wrote:
> > :
> > : Yeah, normal ST then. Nothing against it, liked it, but I dont see how
> > : that was different to TOS or TNG.
> > :
> > Probably due to the practical limitations of the day, TOS
> > didn't actually show the Enterprise being destroyed. Granted,
> > Scotty usually pulled some babble from his backside, but that,
> > to me, is greatly different from actually destroying the ship,
> > then invoking parallel universes, time travel, dreams, etc. to
> > explain why everybody is fine and everything is okay.
>
> I dont actually recall that happening as you describe.
Me neither. The show is still in syndication and that includes the redone
effects.
RT
> Your Name wrote:
> > "AC"<x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
> >> Your Name wrote:
> >>> "AC"<x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
> >>>> Your Name wrote:
> >>>>> "AC"<x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
Correct.
> is pointless. It gives the action stuff meaning. Something ST never ever
> had.
Well, here and there but nothing like the emphasis in B5. Loved that
scene with the "angels"...
> The space battles were brilliant and better than anything at the time.
> They still hold up well to day.
Have not seen it in a LONG time...
RT
> In article <GNdQo.72656$DC7....@newsfe16.ams2>, AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
> > Your Name wrote:
> > > "AC"<x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
> > >> Your Name wrote:
> > >>> "AC"<x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
> > >>>> Your Name wrote:
> > >>>>> "AC"<x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
> > >>>>>>
Just because YOU didn't understand it.
In 1991, 2001: A Space Odyssey was deemed culturally significant by the
United States Library of Congress and selected for preservation in the
National Film Registry.
> silent space scenes accompanied by dreadful ballet music). :-(
Ballet music in B5? HUH? You're full of it.
As for 2001, you wanted Rolling Stones or something? Maybe some of that
Deliverance banjo music?
> > >> No idea what you mean by "real star trek". I don't see the difference
> > >> between an average eps of TOS and Enterprise. Don't see what was lazy
> > >> about DS9 apart from nicking the general premise of the show.
> > >
> > > The laziness in both Deep Space Nine and Voyager came from writers who
> > > couldn't be bothered coming up with stories that actually fit into the Star
> > > Trek universe, so instead they had the entire command staff playing silly
> > > games in the Holodeck ... which was moronically stupid in Deep Space Nine
> > > when the station is sitting on THE most strategic point during a war!
> >
> > Im sorry, but none of that fits. They hardly used the holodeck and what
> > is wrong with R&R during a war? Do you begrudge soldiers in Iraq etc
> > some R&R? If they had a holodeck, you can bet your life they would use
> > it. Are soldiers and their commanders moronically stupid?
>
> R&R, yes, of course that's fine ... but not the ENTIRE command staff at
> THE SAME TIME while sitting on THE most strategic point of the whole war.
> That's simply idiotic and would never, ever happen.
Oh? It was nothing but constant fighting????? Never a moment when not under
attack? Oh fer...
RT
> "AC" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
> > > "RT"<traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Yes? And? What happens if they sleep 8 hours at the same time? Eat?
Geez you're a whiner. Perhaps you should be allowed to own a tv...
RT
> >> Your Name wrote:
> >> > "AC"<x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
> >> >> Your Name wrote:
> >> >>> "AC"<x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
> >> >>>> Your Name wrote:
> >> >>>>> "AC"<x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
It's in the same place with the Old BSG posts...
RT
> > THE SAME TIME while sitting on THE most strategic point of the whole war.
> > That's simply idiotic and would never, ever happen.
> >
> > It wasn't just the holod(r)ek episodes either. Quite often the entire
> > command staff went off "playing" in the spaceships.
> >
> > The proper Star Trek shows tried and succeeded in staying (mostly)
> > consistent.
>
> The "proper" Star Trek original series had the ship's highest ranking
> personnel going directly into harms way together, nearly each and every
;)
catpandaddy
"RT" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Heh!
Your Name
<traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
There were plenty of them, usually because the holod(r)ek was broken and
they couldn't get out, or the holod(r)eck characters managed to get out,
...
> > The main ones were Janeway and her fantasy Irish village, and in Deep Space
> > Nine there was that silly holographic nightclub singer who they all became
> > friends with ... but there were others.
>
> That's it? A couple of episodes here and there?
It's more than "a couple of episodes here and there", but it of course
wasn't the only episodes they made.
Your Name
<traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Oh dear, I see we've entered the stage where people can't actually read.
Time to stop wasting my time. :-\
catpandaddy
You are clearly "Dropping the Helicopter" or his twin, because your
Johnny-One-Note style is long past wearing thin.
catpandaddy
"Your Name" <your...@isp.com> wrote in message
news:your.name-241...@203-109-166-117.dial.dyn.ihug.co.nz...
Please DO stop.
Dillon Pyron
>
>"AC" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
>news:sTcOo.37284$PE1....@newsfe29.ams2...
>> catpandaddy wrote:
>>>
>>> "AC" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
>>> news:6XUNo.53097$Wk6....@newsfe27.ams2...
>>>> Dillon Pyron wrote:
>>>>> Apparently the David Hasselhof "reality show" has been cancelled after
>>>>> two episodes. The lead in show (Ozzy?) came in with 1.4 million and
>>>>> David's show had 740 odd thousand and then a little over 600K.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now THAT'S tanking. When you flush 50% of your audience, either the
>>>>> network screwed up in its positioning or your show sucks. Losing
>>>>> another almost 18% the next week suggests it wasn't positioning.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, it tanked. This, er, show just tanked worse. Both still tanked.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> AC
>>>
>>> Fawlty Towers only lasted for 12 shows total, but people consider it to
>>> be a good series even so!
>>
>> Yeah.... and? Several British shows did this, stopping when its right to,
>> rather than milking it. Are you suggesting either of the above shows
>> stopped for creative reasons??? Surely not.
>
>So where does Firefly fit in on this spectrum here? It wasn't stopped for
>creative reasons, but also wasn't a poor quality show, so we need a third
>category there.
Positioning. And HORRIBLE mismangement by the network. I can't
remember the order, but I think it was episode 3,1,4,2,5,6, (at which
point the numbers are at least in order).
Anybody who walked in after episode two of The Event is totally lost.
Imagine how well that show would have gone if we started with ep 3.
Imagine how well Flashforward would have done if we had started with
ep 2. Okay, that's a bad example. :-)
I actually think Hasselhof died because people are getting a little
tired of that kind of show.
At least I hope so. Please God. Allah. Iawah. Lord Vishnu (and the
others). And any other gods, demigods and minor dieties I may have
forgotten. As well as the network suits. And their minnions who
actually get paid to read this drivel.
--
- dillon I am not invalid
An object's desireability to a dog is directly
proportional to its desireability to another dog.
Dillon Pyron
>
>"AC" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
>news:xRmOo.33239$jO1....@newsfe07.ams2...
>> catpandaddy wrote:
>> >
>> > So where does Firefly fit in on this spectrum here? It wasn't stopped
>> > for creative reasons, but also wasn't a poor quality show, so we need a
>> > third category there.
>>
>> I honestly dont know. Firstly, I don't even begin to pretend to
>> understand US TV decision making. I'm sure, however, it shoots its self
>> in the foot by being so quick to dump shows. In the UK there is more
>> willingness to let a show build an audience and find its feet.
>>
>> I wouldn't mind betting that many British shows people regard as classic
>> would not have made it that far in the US.
>
>Most British shows wouldn't last one episode in America ... most Americans
>simply "do not get it".
Yeah. I watched L&O:UK and the first two episodes would have been the
last two in the US. Seems the British like this thing called
"character development."
Consider the number of British shows that have been "reimagined" in
the US. The Office pops immediately to mind. And Top Gear has been,
from what I've seen so far, an episode by episode clone. Without The
Stig. And the multi millions of dollars of cars in a single episode.\
>
>
>
>> I would guess, that had Firefly been British, it would have survived. It
>> would have had less episodes and been lower budget, but it would have
>> had time to establish. I would add that I would not say that's an
>> automatic thing for any failed "good" US show. I think Firefly was
>> pretty unique. It was a show like Babylon 5, in that it is a scifi set
>> show that can draw non scifi fans.
>
>I've never seen Firefly, but Babblealong 5 was abysmally boring. I don't
>many, if any, "no scifi fans" were interested in watching it ... most scifi
>fans I know weren't even interested in watching it (in fact a couple of
>people I know watched it solely to see the Amiga-driven special effects
>because they orked or were interested in that area).
B5 had a strong story arc with development of the arc even in episodes
without seeming direct attachment to the arc. Some people might think
of this as "Babblealong", but not others. Apparently enough people
liked it to keep it going longer than the network had expected it to
survive. Now the "movies" were horrid, but that's because the show's
concept didn't lend itself to a 2 hour movie.
Oh, DS9 was another one in this same structure. Many folks consider
it to be the best of the ST movies. And Voyager and Enterprise to be
so bad that America's Funniest Home Videos is a better ST show.
Your Name
<invalid...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> [Default] Thus spake "Your Name" <your...@isp.com>:
>
> >
> >"AC" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
> >news:xRmOo.33239$jO1....@newsfe07.ams2...
> >> catpandaddy wrote:
> >> >
> >> > So where does Firefly fit in on this spectrum here? It wasn't stopped
> >> > for creative reasons, but also wasn't a poor quality show, so we need a
> >> > third category there.
> >>
> >> I honestly dont know. Firstly, I don't even begin to pretend to
> >> understand US TV decision making. I'm sure, however, it shoots its self
> >> in the foot by being so quick to dump shows. In the UK there is more
> >> willingness to let a show build an audience and find its feet.
> >>
> >> I wouldn't mind betting that many British shows people regard as classic
> >> would not have made it that far in the US.
> >
> >Most British shows wouldn't last one episode in America ... most Americans
> >simply "do not get it".
>
> Yeah. I watched L&O:UK and the first two episodes would have been the
> last two in the US. Seems the British like this thing called
> "character development."
>
> Consider the number of British shows that have been "reimagined" in
> the US. The Office pops immediately to mind. And Top Gear has been,
> from what I've seen so far, an episode by episode clone. Without The
> Stig. And the multi millions of dollars of cars in a single episode.\
The American Top Gear starts here next year, but we've had the Australian
version which is awful. It's pretty much a clone too, but they're trying
WAY too hard to be funny and just come across as pathetic.
Dillon Pyron
Ah, so our two countries seem to be sharing acting and production
staff. I almost said "talent", but my 7 month old Corgi has more
talent jumping on to the couch. When he can.
I'm sure you'll love our version. Be sure to tell me what you think
of episode 4. The one after I quit watching it.
RT
There are episode guides online. Feel free to document your claim ->
> > > The main ones were Janeway and her fantasy Irish village, and in Deep Space
> > > Nine there was that silly holographic nightclub singer who they all became
> > > friends with ... but there were others.
> >
> > That's it? A couple of episodes here and there?
>
> It's more than "a couple of episodes here and there", but it of course
> wasn't the only episodes they made.
See above.
RT
> In article <4D13CC89...@hotmMOVEail.com>, RT
> <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> > Your Name wrote:
> > > "RT" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > "AC" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
> > > > >
> > > > > > No idea what you mean by "real star trek". I don't see the difference
> > > > > > between an average eps of TOS and Enterprise. Don't see what was lazy
> > > > > > about DS9 apart from nicking the general premise of the show.
> > > > >
> > > > > The laziness in both Deep Space Nine and Voyager came from writers who
> > > > > couldn't be bothered coming up with stories that actually fit into the
> > > Star
> > > > > Trek universe, so instead they had the entire command staff playing
> > > silly
> > > > > games in the Holodeck ... which was moronically stupid in Deep Space
> > > Nine
> > > > > when the station is sitting on THE most strategic point during a war!
> > > >
> > > > What playing in the holodeck? The ST shows frmo TNG on (except of course
> > > for
> > > > Enterprise) used it here and there, but making up the bulk of the series?
> > > Did
> > > > you really watch at all?
> > >
> > > When did I say the holod(r)eck episodes made "up the bulk of the series"??
> >
> > instead they had the entire command staff playing silly
> > games in the Holodeck
>
> Oh dear, I see we've entered the stage where people can't actually read.
> Time to stop wasting my time. :-\
Oh dear, I see we've entered the stage where you can't back up what you're
claiming.
Your Name
<traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Whatever fallacy you want to believe. :-\
Your Name
<traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
Whatever fallacy you want to believe. :-\
RT
Does this mean you can't document your claim?
RT
Does this mean you can't back up your claim?
Your Name
"RT" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Oh dear, I see we've entered the stage where morons can't actually read.
RT
Oh dear, I've see we've past the stage where you can't back up your claim
and moved on to running away...
Doctor Clu
I enjoyed a few scenes in Caprica. I was really hoping more for the
human / cylon war, but the story was too far back for that, showing the
development of the cylons, which I thought looked cool and a good throw
back to the original series.
One scene helped illustrate the pain of the Cylon very well when it was
commanded to rip it's own arm off, to which they flashed to the girl
tugging on her own arm, and then finished with the Cylon machine
finishing the act. wow... cool story telling on that.
Aside from that, it was an interesting concept. More of a classic
series fan so all the storyline and buildup kinda went past me.
But I like the development of the Cylon scenes. :)
. . Doctor Clu (of...)
)\,,/ =PRISON BOARD BBS=
/(O _O) 972-329-0781
( \____ ) telnet://rdfig.net
|_\