"Defying Gravity": What Went Wrong
Steven L.
'Defying Gravity' TV series cancelled
September 14, 6:36 AM
Defying Gravity, the ABC network space soap opera, has had its series
finale, having been cancelled due to poor ratings before the last filmed
episode had aired. It was inevitable, of course, as Defying Gravity
defied logic.
Defying Gravity, for those who never watched it, and that would be most
of those reading this, was a series about an interplanetary voyage that
planned to visit most of the planets of the Solar System in six years.
That straight away tells one of the lengths the series took to ignore
science.
Since interplanetary voyages tend to be boring, even when things
occasionally go wrong, the show�s writers had to invent improbable
things to happen for the time the ship was between worlds. This usually
consisted of soap opera, personal relationship nonsense, coupled with a
mystery involving something called �Beta� and the �true purpose� of the
mission. Lots of air time was eaten up with pointless flashbacks to the
training regime for our intrepid crew.
So Defying Gravity shed viewers as an ascending rocket sheds stages and
fuel. The series was cancelled with no immediate plans to air the
unaired episodes six days away from Venus, the first destination.
Defying Gravity had a good initial premise; do a show set in the near
future about an interplanetary voyage of discovery. But the execution,
as is too often the case, fell very short of the mark.
Here are some tips for anyone wanting to do a similar show and do it right.
First, choose one destination. Mars has been done to death. I suggest
the Saturn system. Saturn has lots of interesting moons to visit, which
would take up a lot of air time.
Second, sit down with a lot of scientists, astronauts, and futurists and
plan out what the mission is going to look like, who the crew will be,
and what they might find at their destination.
Third, make sure that a few of these people you consult read your series
bible and every script. That way you will adhere to some semblance of
scientific and technological reality.
Fourth, do not pull out the hoary old �secret conspiracy� device to try
to make things interesting. This too has been done to death.
Fifth, do not rely too much on sex to drive your show. It is a heavy
temptation to throw it the green eyed monster to raise tension, but
really, if NASA or whatever agency is sending this mission has planned
it right, the crew will be chosen in part to be too professional to bang
each other over the head with pipe wrenches over who gets what nookie.
Finally, plan out what your future society is going to look like in
advance. Defying Gravity was set in the 2050s, but it looked like 2009
except abortion is illegal. Think about how things might change in the
next thirty to fifty years and you�ll find things that will drive your
story arc in more interesting and original ways than sex, secret
conspiracies, and technobabble.
[
I had thought they could have blended a story about space with a
background story of America borrowed from the novel "Prayers for the
Assassin." That is, by the year 2050, America has lost the War on
Terror and now we're a Muslim country with the Stars and Stripes
replaced by the Prophet's Green Flag. That would have really gotten
viewers to tune in.
]
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Dimensional Traveler
some moral or political message, start a petition or write your
congressional representative. Morality tales need to be a bit divorced
from reality, simple in message, and more of an end note to an
entertaining story. The moral of the story should be subtle, more
"gentle guidance" then tirade. A television show is not a soapbox for
you to use to force your beliefs upon others. The audience first of all
wants to be entertained. Being berated is not entertaining.
--
Things I learned from Usenet #29: Do not chew the peach.
Veni, Vidi, Snarki.
David Johnston
<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>[
>I had thought they could have blended a story about space with a
>background story of America borrowed from the novel "Prayers for the
>Assassin." That is, by the year 2050, America has lost the War on
>Terror and now we're a Muslim country with the Stars and Stripes
>replaced by the Prophet's Green Flag. That would have really gotten
>viewers to tune in.
>]
That would be infinitely less plausible than a 2050 where men still
wear ties and drive cars. How does one go about "losing" a "War on
Terror" anyway?
Steven L.
Well, many Star Trek episodes (all series) were morality plays.
However, the morality play was the essence of the Trek episode. Whereas
in Defying Gravity, the morality stuff seemed to be grafted on. (Did it
really matter to the space mission whether abortion was legal?)
Steven L.
Ask the Europeans. They've already lost.
There are whole neighborhoods where native Frenchmen are afraid to go,
because they would be hacked to pieces by the Muslim "immigrants."
David Johnston
<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>David Johnston wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 10:24:55 -0400, "Steven L."
>> <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> [
>>> I had thought they could have blended a story about space with a
>>> background story of America borrowed from the novel "Prayers for the
>>> Assassin." That is, by the year 2050, America has lost the War on
>>> Terror and now we're a Muslim country with the Stars and Stripes
>>> replaced by the Prophet's Green Flag. That would have really gotten
>>> viewers to tune in.
>>> ]
>>
>> That would be infinitely less plausible than a 2050 where men still
>> wear ties and drive cars. How does one go about "losing" a "War on
>> Terror" anyway?
>
>Ask the Europeans. They've already lost.
Oh, so life in an America that lost the war on terror would be totally
unchanged then?
>
>There are whole neighborhoods where native Frenchmen are afraid to go,
>because they would be hacked to pieces by the Muslim "immigrants."
Riiiight. So after the "war on terror" there would be poor
neighborhoods in American cities where white people are reluctant to
go. Obviously that would change EVERYTHING. Right now there are no
bad neighborhoods inhabited by minorities in the United States.
Dimensional Traveler
Trek episodes were stories with a moral rather than sermons. (At least
most of them, I'm not going to get into a raging on particular series or
episodes session.) They were coherent stories with plots! They didn't
have to use pointless special effects, memory flashbacks or similar
tricks to hide from the audience their essential _lack_ of a coherent plot.
> However, the morality play was the essence of the Trek episode. Whereas
> in Defying Gravity, the morality stuff seemed to be grafted on. (Did it
> really matter to the space mission whether abortion was legal?)
>
Your question needs to be the other way 'round. "Did they really need a
space mission to send their message about abortion?" :-P
Turk
> Steven L. wrote:
> > Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> >> Steven L. wrote:
> >>> Houston Space News Examiner
> >>> 'Defying Gravity' TV series cancelled
> >>> September 14, 6:36 AM
>
> >>> Defying Gravity, the ABC network space soap opera, has had its series
> >>> finale, having been cancelled due to poor ratings before the last
> >>> filmed episode had aired. It was inevitable, of course, as Defying
> >>> Gravity defied logic.
>
> >>> Defying Gravity, for those who never watched it, and that would be
> >>> most of those reading this, was a series about an interplanetary
> >>> voyage that planned to visit most of the planets of the Solar System
> >>> in six years. That straight away tells one of the lengths the series
> >>> took to ignore science.
>
> >>> Since interplanetary voyages tend to be boring, even when things
> >>> things to happen for the time the ship was between worlds. This
> >>> usually consisted of soap opera, personal relationship nonsense,
> >>> “true purpose” of the mission. Lots of air time was eaten up with
> >>> pointless flashbacks to the training regime for our intrepid crew.
>
> >>> So Defying Gravity shed viewers as an ascending rocket sheds stages
> >>> and fuel. The series was cancelled with no immediate plans to air the
> >>> unaired episodes six days away from Venus, the first destination.
>
> >>> Defying Gravity had a good initial premise; do a show set in the near
> >>> future about an interplanetary voyage of discovery. But the
> >>> execution, as is too often the case, fell very short of the mark.
>
> >>> Here are some tips for anyone wanting to do a similar show and do it
> >>> right.
>
> >>> First, choose one destination. Mars has been done to death. I suggest
> >>> the Saturn system. Saturn has lots of interesting moons to visit,
> >>> which would take up a lot of air time.
>
> >>> Second, sit down with a lot of scientists, astronauts, and futurists
> >>> and plan out what the mission is going to look like, who the crew
> >>> will be, and what they might find at their destination.
>
> >>> Third, make sure that a few of these people you consult read your
> >>> series bible and every script. That way you will adhere to some
> >>> semblance of scientific and technological reality.
>
> >>> try to make things interesting. This too has been done to death.
>
> >>> Fifth, do not rely too much on sex to drive your show. It is a heavy
> >>> temptation to throw it the green eyed monster to raise tension, but
> >>> really, if NASA or whatever agency is sending this mission has
> >>> planned it right, the crew will be chosen in part to be too
> >>> professional to bang each other over the head with pipe wrenches over
> >>> who gets what nookie.
>
> >>> Finally, plan out what your future society is going to look like in
> >>> advance. Defying Gravity was set in the 2050s, but it looked like
> >>> 2009 except abortion is illegal. Think about how things might change
> >>> drive your story arc in more interesting and original ways than sex,
> >>> secret conspiracies, and technobabble.
>
> >>>http://tinyurl.com/q26klc
>
> >> *claps* I'd add a Sixth: Do not preach at the audience. If you have
> >> some moral or political message, start a petition or write your
> >> congressional representative. Morality tales need to be a bit
> >> divorced from reality, simple in message, and more of an end note to
> >> an entertaining story. The moral of the story should be subtle, more
> >> "gentle guidance" then tirade.
>
> > Well, many Star Trek episodes (all series) were morality plays.
>
> I know (and I knew someone was going to mention Star Trek) but the Star
> Trek episodes were stories with a moral rather than sermons. (At least
> most of them, I'm not going to get into a raging on particular series or
> episodes session.) They were coherent stories with plots! They didn't
> have to use pointless special effects, memory flashbacks or similar
> tricks to hide from the audience their essential _lack_ of a coherent plot.
>
> > However, the morality play was the essence of the Trek episode. Whereas
> > in Defying Gravity, the morality stuff seemed to be grafted on. (Did it
> > really matter to the space mission whether abortion was legal?)
>
> Your question needs to be the other way 'round. "Did they really need a
> space mission to send their message about abortion?" :-P
>
> --
> Things I learned from Usenet #29: Do not chew the peach.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Never watched Defying Gravity. Premise was classic tweener --- is it
sci fi? Is it soap opera? Is it Lifetime series in space? Who is
intended audience? Star Trek incorporated moral themes, but it had
the genius to use aliens most of the time, and for the most part, had
writers and others who at least had some understanding of science
fiction. And it was actually entertaining. From what I gather, DG
was not.
Turk
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <6s5db59u24p87keqa...@4ax.com>):
> Riiiight. So after the "war on terror" there would be poor
> neighborhoods in American cities where white people are reluctant to
> go.
Isn't that called 'Detroit'?
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
David Johnston
<dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>> Well, many Star Trek episodes (all series) were morality plays.
>>
>I know (and I knew someone was going to mention Star Trek) but the Star
>Trek episodes were stories with a moral rather than sermons. (At least
>most of them, I'm not going to get into a raging on particular series or
>episodes session.) They were coherent stories with plots! They didn't
>have to use pointless special effects, memory flashbacks or similar
>tricks to hide from the audience their essential _lack_ of a coherent plot.
The lack of a "coherent plot" has nothing to do with the preachiness.
They were copying Lost.
Fallen
> Houston Space News Examiner
> 'Defying Gravity' TV series cancelled
> September 14, 6:36 AM
>
> Defying Gravity, the ABC network space soap opera, has had its series
> finale, having been cancelled due to poor ratings before the last filmed
> episode had aired.
It's never going to be the greatest article when it's first sentence is
wrong is it.
Fallen.
Dimensional Traveler
Not sure I agree with that. True, it doesn't have to be preachy to have
those problems but I think in this case their attempt at preaching
interfered with their intended plot or blinded them to the poorness of it.
D. Stussy
news:r6WdnWAhVqqopivX...@earthlink.com...
> Houston Space News Examiner
> 'Defying Gravity' TV series cancelled
> September 14, 6:36 AM
>
> Defying Gravity, the ABC network space soap opera, has had its series
> finale, having been cancelled due to poor ratings before the last filmed
> episode had aired. It was inevitable, of course, as Defying Gravity
> defied logic.
>
> Defying Gravity, for those who never watched it, and that would be most
> of those reading this, was a series about an interplanetary voyage that
> planned to visit most of the planets of the Solar System in six years.
> That straight away tells one of the lengths the series took to ignore
> science.
>
> Since interplanetary voyages tend to be boring, even when things
> things to happen for the time the ship was between worlds. This usually
> consisted of soap opera, personal relationship nonsense, coupled with a
> mission. Lots of air time was eaten up with pointless flashbacks to the
> training regime for our intrepid crew.
>
> So Defying Gravity shed viewers as an ascending rocket sheds stages and
> fuel. The series was cancelled with no immediate plans to air the
> unaired episodes six days away from Venus, the first destination.
>
> Defying Gravity had a good initial premise; do a show set in the near
> future about an interplanetary voyage of discovery. But the execution,
> as is too often the case, fell very short of the mark.
>
> Here are some tips for anyone wanting to do a similar show and do it
right.
>
> First, choose one destination. Mars has been done to death. I suggest
> the Saturn system. Saturn has lots of interesting moons to visit, which
> would take up a lot of air time.
DG did that - as the first stop would be Venus. Using a sling-shot around
Venus for a gravitational assist to head to the outer solar system has been
done by our space probes.
> Second, sit down with a lot of scientists, astronauts, and futurists and
> plan out what the mission is going to look like, who the crew will be,
> and what they might find at their destination.
I don't see evidence that something like that wasn't done.
> Third, make sure that a few of these people you consult read your series
> bible and every script. That way you will adhere to some semblance of
> scientific and technological reality.
I thik that they did do some of that - especially with RFID chips in
business cards that were swipeable across the cell-phones to make calls,
etc. Magnetic nanofibers sewn into the clothes also made sense.
> Fourth, do not pull out the hoary old �secret conspiracy� device to try
> to make things interesting. This too has been done to death.
I agree here.
> Fifth, do not rely too much on sex to drive your show. It is a heavy
> temptation to throw it the green eyed monster to raise tension, but
> really, if NASA or whatever agency is sending this mission has planned
> it right, the crew will be chosen in part to be too professional to bang
> each other over the head with pipe wrenches over who gets what nookie.
Well, it's still prime-time TV at 10pm.... Network suits don't understand
much else, except for police shows, news, and Jay Leno.
> Finally, plan out what your future society is going to look like in
> advance. Defying Gravity was set in the 2050s, but it looked like 2009
> except abortion is illegal. Think about how things might change in the
> next thirty to fifty years and you�ll find things that will drive your
> story arc in more interesting and original ways than sex, secret
> conspiracies, and technobabble.
I didn't see a problem with what they did. Society (the people themselves)
probably won't change very much. Technology will, and they showed some of
that.
> [I had thought they could have blended a story about space with a
> background story of America borrowed from the novel "Prayers for the
> Assassin." That is, by the year 2050, America has lost the War on
> Terror and now we're a Muslim country with the Stars and Stripes
> replaced by the Prophet's Green Flag. That would have really gotten
> viewers to tune in.]
That most certainly would have led to an EARLIER cancellation.
Anim8rFSK
"D. Stussy" <sp...@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:
But they're also stopping at Mercury.
--
ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!
Saturday the 19th be "Talk Like a Pirate Day"!!!
http://www.talklikeapirate.com/
Endymion9
news:911df2e3-9cc2-4592...@y10g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
-snip-
Never watched Defying Gravity. Premise was classic tweener --- is it
sci fi? Is it soap opera? Is it Lifetime series in space? Who is
intended audience? Star Trek incorporated moral themes, but it had
the genius to use aliens most of the time, and for the most part, had
writers and others who at least had some understanding of science
fiction. And it was actually entertaining. From what I gather, DG
was not.
I thought of it as Dawson's Creek in space.
--
Dennis/Endy9
~Some will sink, but we will float. Grab your coat. Let's get out of here.
You're my witness, I'm your Mutineer.~ Warren Zevon
--
Michael Black
> "Turk" <chica...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:911df2e3-9cc2-4592...@y10g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> -snip-
> Never watched Defying Gravity. Premise was classic tweener --- is it
> sci fi? Is it soap opera? Is it Lifetime series in space? Who is
> intended audience? Star Trek incorporated moral themes, but it had
> the genius to use aliens most of the time, and for the most part, had
> writers and others who at least had some understanding of science
> fiction. And it was actually entertaining. From what I gather, DG
> was not.
>
>
>
> I thought of it as Dawson's Creek in space.
>
The funny thing is, there were "space operas" in the early days of
science fiction. But they were epic and large, not related to
relationships or the other fodder of soap operas.
Michael
PaulMofATL
wrote:
I don't know if the writers or the casting folks should take the
blame, but it was one of those shows IMO that didn't have a likeable
character in it. The number one asshole was Maddux Donner.
Harold Groot
<sp...@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:
>> Here are some tips for anyone wanting to do a similar show and do it
>right.
>> First, choose one destination. Mars has been done to death. I suggest
>> the Saturn system. Saturn has lots of interesting moons to visit, which
>> would take up a lot of air time.
>DG did that - as the first stop would be Venus. Using a sling-shot around
>Venus for a gravitational assist to head to the outer solar system has been
>done by our space probes.
This only works when you approach and slingshot around WITHOUT
STOPPING. So if the mothership goes into orbit (while the lander
descends and comes back up) they get no boost from Venus. In fact,
they have to climb out of the Venus gravity well a bit when they
leave, and they're further into the solar gravity well to boot.
OTOH, if they're NOT going into orbit, but just planning to send down
a lander and then have it rendezvous as they slingshot by - well, your
asking your little lander to either
(a) go ahead of the mothership, land on Venus and head back to meet up
with the mothership as it's still on its approach (so go back to it,
come to a dead halt, turn around and then match velocities as you head
towards Venus again), or
(b) match velocities with the mothership as it heads away from Venus
(when it got the slingshot boost and you didn't, and you're climbing
directly from the bottom of the Venus gravity well) or even
(c) match velocities right as it goes around Venus - when the
mothership has absolutely its highest velocity and the lander has the
least time available to build its velocity, and only a tiny fraction
of time to actually rendezvous (with tricky orbital dynamics) instead
of after a long stern chase like choice (b).
With DG, they'd probably pick (c) and explain that they did so because
THE WINDS ON VENUS ARE FRACTAL, FRACTAL I TELL YOU....
Anim8rFSK
que...@infionline.net (Harold Groot) wrote:
I'm assuming Space: 1999 physics, where the Moon would stop at a planet
for a few days, in orbit, and then take off again all by itself, at a
predictible time.
Jack Bohn
>OTOH, if they're NOT going into orbit, but just planning to send down
>a lander and then have it rendezvous as they slingshot by - well, your
>asking your little lander to either
>
>(a) go ahead of the mothership, land on Venus and head back to meet up
>with the mothership as it's still on its approach (so go back to it,
>come to a dead halt, turn around and then match velocities as you head
>towards Venus again), or
AAARRGGG!
I've been stupid! Can I blame it on stupidity rays coming from
my TV set?
I've been thinking of the lander as a small capsule, but it's not
just a lander, it's also a taker-off-again. And unlike the
Apollo LEM, it's not fighting a mere 1/81 the mass of the Earth,
more like 5/6. Think of carrying something like the Redstone or
Atlas rockets, plus additional systems to land such.
Similar, but smaller one for Mars, the others can use more
Moon-like launches.
--
-Jack
Anim8rFSK
Jack Bohn <jack...@bright.net> wrote:
From what they've said, I think they have one lander designed to go to
all the landing sites; the unique thing about Venus is that stupid
spacesuit AbortionGirl can't move in. I have no idea how they intend to
dig up the other blobs.
Dave Searles
We drill. We'll bring the world's best deep-core driller.
David Johnston
<dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>David Johnston wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 14:02:23 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>> <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Well, many Star Trek episodes (all series) were morality plays.
>>>>
>>> I know (and I knew someone was going to mention Star Trek) but the Star
>>> Trek episodes were stories with a moral rather than sermons. (At least
>>> most of them, I'm not going to get into a raging on particular series or
>>> episodes session.) They were coherent stories with plots! They didn't
>>> have to use pointless special effects, memory flashbacks or similar
>>> tricks to hide from the audience their essential _lack_ of a coherent plot.
>>
>> The lack of a "coherent plot" has nothing to do with the preachiness.
>> They were copying Lost.
>
>Not sure I agree with that. True, it doesn't have to be preachy to have
>those problems but I think in this case their attempt at preaching
>interfered with their intended plot or blinded them to the poorness of it.
There is no "intended plot". There never was. Wandering around
assembling the parts of a Lovecraftian horror is not a plot.
Dimensional Traveler
Ah, yes. My apologies, I was giving the DG crew too much credit. :D
Anim8rFSK
Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
> David Johnston wrote:
> > On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 16:34:36 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
> > <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >
> >> David Johnston wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 14:02:23 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
> >>> <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> Well, many Star Trek episodes (all series) were morality plays.
> >>>>>
> >>>> I know (and I knew someone was going to mention Star Trek) but the Star
> >>>> Trek episodes were stories with a moral rather than sermons. (At least
> >>>> most of them, I'm not going to get into a raging on particular series or
> >>>> episodes session.) They were coherent stories with plots! They didn't
> >>>> have to use pointless special effects, memory flashbacks or similar
> >>>> tricks to hide from the audience their essential _lack_ of a coherent
> >>>> plot.
> >>> The lack of a "coherent plot" has nothing to do with the preachiness.
> >>> They were copying Lost.
> >> Not sure I agree with that. True, it doesn't have to be preachy to have
> >> those problems but I think in this case their attempt at preaching
> >> interfered with their intended plot or blinded them to the poorness of it.
> >
> > There is no "intended plot". There never was. Wandering around
> > assembling the parts of a Lovecraftian horror is not a plot.
>
> Ah, yes. My apologies, I was giving the DG crew too much credit. :D
It might *become* a plot, if we're willing to wait 6 years.
Davej
> Steven L. wrote:
> > Houston Space News Examiner
> > 'Defying Gravity' TV series cancelled
> > September 14, 6:36 AM
>
> *claps* I'd add a Sixth: Do not preach at the audience. If you have
Like Babylon 5 ?
Dimensional Traveler
than 2 years! This baby needed to be aborted!!! *evil grin*
And, apropo of nothing in particular, I just realized that Laura Harris
seems to have a "thing" for playing characters associated with death
lately. She was an undead in 'Dead Like Me', her character tried to
fake her own death in 'The Dead Zone' (the title alone qualifies for
this :-P ), was in the 'Women's Murder Club' and was haunted by the
ghost of her dead baby in 'Defying Gravity'.
Steven L.
That's not fatal.
"Lost" had a collection of antiheroes: Kate who murdered her stepdad,
Jack who covered up his dad's malpractice, Sawyer who conned women, etc.
You really couldn't like them--but you were fascinated by them.
The problem with BG's characters wasn't that they were unlikeable. The
problem was that they were uninteresting.
Steven L.
> "Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:r6WdnWAhVqqopivX...@earthlink.com...
>> Houston Space News Examiner
>> 'Defying Gravity' TV series cancelled
>> September 14, 6:36 AM
>>
>> Defying Gravity, the ABC network space soap opera, has had its series
>> finale, having been cancelled due to poor ratings before the last filmed
>> episode had aired. It was inevitable, of course, as Defying Gravity
>> defied logic.
>>
>> Defying Gravity, for those who never watched it, and that would be most
>> of those reading this, was a series about an interplanetary voyage that
>> planned to visit most of the planets of the Solar System in six years.
>> That straight away tells one of the lengths the series took to ignore
>> science.
>>
>> Since interplanetary voyages tend to be boring, even when things
>> things to happen for the time the ship was between worlds. This usually
>> consisted of soap opera, personal relationship nonsense, coupled with a
>> to make things interesting. This too has been done to death.
>
> I agree here.
>
>> Fifth, do not rely too much on sex to drive your show. It is a heavy
>> temptation to throw it the green eyed monster to raise tension, but
>> really, if NASA or whatever agency is sending this mission has planned
>> it right, the crew will be chosen in part to be too professional to bang
>> each other over the head with pipe wrenches over who gets what nookie.
>
> Well, it's still prime-time TV at 10pm.... Network suits don't understand
> much else, except for police shows, news, and Jay Leno.
>
>> Finally, plan out what your future society is going to look like in
>> advance. Defying Gravity was set in the 2050s, but it looked like 2009
>> except abortion is illegal. Think about how things might change in the
>> story arc in more interesting and original ways than sex, secret
>> conspiracies, and technobabble.
>
> I didn't see a problem with what they did. Society (the people themselves)
> probably won't change very much. Technology will, and they showed some of
> that.
Society always changes a lot in 40 years.
It's sure changed a lot since Apollo 11 in 1969.
I know. I was a teenager back then.
And the society of 1969 was very different from the society of 1929.
Steven L.
or
(d) Just send down an unmanned probe that will land on the planet and
radio its findings back to the Antares mothership, without attempting to
ever take off again.
That's probably what they were going to do.
>>
>> With DG, they'd probably pick (c) and explain that they did so because
>> THE WINDS ON VENUS ARE FRACTAL, FRACTAL I TELL YOU....
>
> I'm assuming Space: 1999 physics, where the Moon would stop at a planet
> for a few days, in orbit, and then take off again all by itself, at a
> predictible time.
Gee, I just had that same thought myself.
David Johnston
<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>or
>(d) Just send down an unmanned probe that will land on the planet and
>radio its findings back to the Antares mothership, without attempting to
>ever take off again.
>
>That's probably what they were going to do.
No, we saw the Venus suit. And since they needed to collect Venus's
eldritch horror, they have to go down.
Eddie Grove
WARNING -- I have no right to comment having given up 10 to 15 minutes into
the first episode. I remember nothing except that it was unwatchable. If you
object to people criticizing things they know nothing about, killfile me now!
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> writes:
> Fifth, do not rely too much on sex to drive your show.
Isn't that missing the point?
I read a couple of websites describing the series beforehand as being about
abortion politics. They set it on a space ship for whatever reason, but it
wasn't about space travel.
The occasional posts I read here out of curiousity didn't contradict that
description.
> Finally, plan out what your future society is going to look like in
> advance. Defying Gravity was set in the 2050s, but it looked like 2009 except
> abortion is illegal. Think about how things might change in the next thirty to
> fifty years and you’ll find things that will drive your story arc in more
> interesting and original ways than sex, secret conspiracies, and technobabble.
That jibes with the premise that the only thing the show was about was
abortion politics. Why bother with extraneous details they would have screwed
up anyway?
Eddie
Anim8rFSK
David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
So having a Venus suit *almost* makes sense, except she can't do more
than waddle in the damn thing; I have no idea how they expect her to dig
if it's buried.
phil k.
>>> The funny thing is, there were "space operas" in the early days of
>>> science fiction. But they were epic and large, not related to
>>> relationships or the other fodder of soap operas.
>>>
>>
>> I don't know if the writers or the casting folks should take the blame,
>> but it was one of those shows IMO that didn't have a likeable character
>> in it. The number one asshole was Maddux Donner.
>
> That's not fatal.
>
> "Lost" had a collection of antiheroes: Kate who murdered her stepdad,
> Jack who covered up his dad's malpractice, Sawyer who conned women, etc.
> You really couldn't like them--but you were fascinated by them.
Is there anyone in "Lost" who didn't kill someone else in the past?
Anyway, I wasn't interessted by them, I was bored and to some degree
offended by the "plot" so I stopped watching somewhere in the middle of
Season 2. (And I only got this far because I had borrowed a friend's DVD-
set.)
Anim8rFSK
Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
And she was in THE BOOK OF BREASTS that made the audience want to kill
themselves.
Michael Black
>> I don't know if the writers or the casting folks should take the
>> blame, but it was one of those shows IMO that didn't have a likeable
>> character in it. The number one asshole was Maddux Donner.
>
> That's not fatal.
>
> "Lost" had a collection of antiheroes: Kate who murdered her stepdad, Jack
> who covered up his dad's malpractice, Sawyer who conned women, etc. You
> really couldn't like them--but you were fascinated by them.
>
> The problem with BG's characters wasn't that they were unlikeable. The
> problem was that they were uninteresting.
>
But maybe it was the small number of people they had to interact with.
Some people do well in all settings, but others don't. With one
combination of people, they are quiet, with another combination they
are outgoing. They require a certain type of person to set them off.
If you're stuck in a spaceship with a dozen people chosen for a lot of
things, including getting along with others but not to be good friends,
it might end up putting all the characters in a more quiet mode.
Michael
trag
> On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 10:24:55 -0400, "Steven L."
>
> <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >[
> >I had thought they could have blended a story about space with a
> >background story of America borrowed from the novel "Prayers for the
> >Assassin." That is, by the year 2050, America has lost the War on
> >Terror and now we're a Muslim country with the Stars and Stripes
> >replaced by the Prophet's Green Flag. That would have really gotten
> >viewers to tune in.
> >]
>
> wear ties and drive cars. How does one go about "losing" a "War on
> Terror" anyway?
I assert that we lost the war on terror when we implemented the no-
metal-items-for-americans-on-planes and similar absurdities.
trag
> On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 16:34:36 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>
>
>
> >David Johnston wrote:
> >> The lack of a "coherent plot" has nothing to do with the preachiness.
> >> They were copying Lost.
>
> >Not sure I agree with that. True, it doesn't have to be preachy to have
> >those problems but I think in this case their attempt at preaching
> >interfered with their intended plot or blinded them to the poorness of it.
>
> There is no "intended plot". There never was. Wandering around
> assembling the parts of a Lovecraftian horror is not a plot.
So it was Event Horizon?
David Johnston
Well not really. Just because it's an amorphous blob that defies the
laws of physics, feeds on human suffering, and drives those near it
insane, doesn't mean it's a bad thing.
Merrick Baldelli
>Defying Gravity, the ABC network space soap opera, has had its series
>finale, having been cancelled due to poor ratings before the last filmed
>episode had aired. It was inevitable, of course, as Defying Gravity
>defied logic.
<Chris Crocker>Leave Defying Gravity alone! It tried its best
to teach us abortion is bad!!!</Chris Crocker>
Seriously though, It's not cancelled it's just on permanent
hiatus.
[rest snipped]
--
-=-=-/ )=*=-='=-.-'-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
_( (_ , '_ * . Merrick Baldelli
(((\ \> /_1 `
(\\\\ \_/ /
-=-\ /-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
\ _/ Who are these folks and why have they
/ / stopped taking their medication?
- Captain Infinity
David Barnett
news:4ab83013$0$1584$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> And, apropo of nothing in particular, I just realized that Laura Harris
> seems to have a "thing" for playing characters associated with death
> lately. She was an undead in 'Dead Like Me', her character tried to fake
> her own death in 'The Dead Zone' (the title alone qualifies for this
> :-P ), was in the 'Women's Murder Club' and was haunted by the ghost of
> her dead baby in 'Defying Gravity'.
Thanks for the summary; I could not have done it any better.
--
David Barnett
David Barnett
<snip>
> The problem with BG's characters wasn't that they were unlikeable. The
> problem was that they were uninteresting.
Exactly>
--
David Barnett
Steven L.
> In article <kvigb5hk44ahdho63...@4ax.com>,
> David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 23:49:58 -0400, "Steven L."
>> <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> or
>>> (d) Just send down an unmanned probe that will land on the planet and
>>> radio its findings back to the Antares mothership, without attempting to
>>> ever take off again.
>>>
>>> That's probably what they were going to do.
>> No, we saw the Venus suit. And since they needed to collect Venus's
>> eldritch horror, they have to go down.
>
> So having a Venus suit *almost* makes sense, except she can't do more
> than waddle in the damn thing; I have no idea how they expect her to dig
> if it's buried.
Or if the thing puts up any kind of struggle.