SeaQuest Cast Changes: Why?
OoooRHoooo
and I am wondering why there were so many cast changes during the show's
original run?
It seems like half the cast was replaced after the first season and more were
replaced after the second season.
Character's who left the series: (I may have forgotton some)
1. Westphalen (sp?)
2. Crocker
3. Shan
4. Hitchcock
5. Smith
6. Brody
7. Noyce
8. Bridger
9. Krieg
10. The bald guy on the bridge
11. Ortiz
Did all these people want out on their own or were they all fired?
What's the story?
oRHo
C. J. Walther
The reason is simple...the show had no ratings...The reason..the
stories could have been written by a 4 year old with a crayon...It is
standard SOP in TV networks to fire the cast, then bring in a high
paid staff and actors, spend millions on non creative, non scientific
special effects that look great but do nothing for the overall
story....No one ever thinks to spend 50 bucks more to get a good
script which is the problem to begin with. They tried to save the show
with new and maybe betters actors when all they needed was someone who
knew what the hell a submarine does.
Boojie
WWS
OoooRHoooo wrote:
>
> I've been re-watching seaQuest on the Sci-Fi channel over the last month or so
> and I am wondering why there were so many cast changes during the show's
> original run?
>
> It seems like half the cast was replaced after the first season and more were
> replaced after the second season.
>
> Did all these people want out on their own or were they all fired?
>
> What's the story?
They kept having sudden attacks of good taste, a rare thing in
HollyWeird, but it happens. Usually whenever one of them actually
read the script.
--
__________________________________________________WWS_____________
It's a little known fact that the Dark Ages were caused by the
Y1K problem.
WRabkin
>Speilberg production the network had to sign on for 2 seasons up front
Actually, when seaQuest was on Sunday, it split the available audience pretty
evenly with Lois and Clark. And the premiere was huge -- yes, you can buy a big
opening -- while the ratings slid slowly over the next two years.
The reason for all the shuffling of cast, as I understand it -- and I only got
there in year 3 -- was that the show was never properly conceived or developed.
Because of Spielberg's name, NBC ordered two full seasons of the show without
even seeing a script. Two years ordered off the concept alone.
If you've seen the pilot, you know what went wrong. It was, frankly, awful. The
characters shallow and cartoonish, the concept nebulous, the conflicts just
plain silly.
In a normal development process, these problems would have been ironed out
during the pilot process -- or the show wouldn't have been picked up. But this
was a two-year order. So the original writer was shoved aside, and other
writer/producers brought in to "fix" the pilot. Still with no clear vision.
Over the course of the first season, a series of writer/producers came in,
each trying his own way to fix the show -- hence the varying tones and styles
of the episodes.
By season two, there were two showrunners in place, which is a certain recipe
for disaster. David Burke and Patrick Hasburgh -- again, I wasn't there --
spent the year warring over control, and there was not one firm opinion in
charge. Again, the show was all over the map.
By the beginning of the third season, Hasburgh was the show's sole showrunner,
and to my mind, that was the only season of the show that demonstrated any
consistency in tone. Some people hate what the show turned into that year, but
to my mind, it at least had an idea of where it was going.
Of course, even if what we were doing was brilliant -- and that's an argument I
won't get into -- I believe that year 3 is too late to fix a show that's been
rotten for two years. Who's going to tune in now?
Melmoth
> In truth the reason was that nobody was watching. Because it was a
> Speilberg production the network had to sign on for 2 seasons up front
> (like EARTH II).
Hang on though, Earth II never made a second season... so errrmmm... what?
Scott Andrews
Peace, love and Terrans
John Donaldson
>OoooRHoooo wrote:
>> I've been re-watching seaQuest on the Sci-Fi channel over the last month or so
>> and I am wondering why there were so many cast changes during the show's
>> original run?
>They kept having sudden attacks of good taste, a rare thing in
In truth the reason was that nobody was watching. Because it was a
Speilberg production the network had to sign on for 2 seasons up front
(like EARTH II). It had a great slot on Sunday night....Uh! nobody
watched!!!!
IMHO..the basic problem was they never really identified what the
program was. Kept reading inner industry stuff about how they were
going to merchandise Darwin (ala: Lassie). The promo material kept
pushing the science aspect(same problem VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE
SEA had it;s first season).
So 2nd season they housecleaned and went more juvenile and Sci-fi.
Uh!! Didnt help!
IMHO These were all changes they should have done by the 4th show
(season 1) Didn't help that Schneider was badmouthing the show.
Then they just gave up and went totally juvenile. By that point the
cancellation was just waiting for the proper moment so to not piss
off Speilberg.
Now SPACE: ABOVE AND BEYOND had different problems but it didn't help
that there were(wasn't VOYAGER here also) all these shows on one
night. And not in a block...you know how folks are loath to change
channels.
nancy mathews
: I've been re-watching seaQuest on the Sci-Fi channel over the last month or so
: and I am wondering why there were so many cast changes during the show's
: original run?
: It seems like half the cast was replaced after the first season and more were
: replaced after the second season.
: Character's who left the series: (I may have forgotton some)
: 1. Westphalen (sp?)
: 2. Crocker
: 3. Shan
: 4. Hitchcock
: 5. Smith
: 6. Brody
: 7. Noyce
: 8. Bridger
: 9. Krieg
: 10. The bald guy on the bridge
: 11. Ortiz
: Did all these people want out on their own or were they all fired?
:
: What's the story?
:
: oRHo
Because the ratings weren't there, partly because LNC was going pretty
strong 1st season, The way I heard it, was that someone either the
NBC suits, or the producers of the show, brought in a sort of audience
reaction poll. Those most of the audience liked were kept, and those
that didn't click with the audience were 'Let Go'. The reason
Stephanie Beecham was not on 2nd year was her own choice. The
production moved to a big sea tank built in Florida, and Stephanie did
NOT want to move with it, so she quit. They also decided to hire
a younger looking crew to capitalize on attracting and keeping the
Johnathan Brandis followings. Frankly I can't stand any season of
this thing but the first, but I refused to miss Lois & Clark to see it,
after I discovered LNC first season.
Oh well, too many cooks...
Nancy
nmat...@indiana.edu
Sandra Ballasch
tolerated a good deal of second - even if I had to hold my nose over the
bimbo casting; despised most of the third season - the time travel
plotline was a)stupid and b)never followed up by the writers.
Sandra Ballasch
Oh, yes - from what I understand all the cast who left were fired except
Edward Kerr and Roy Scheider - both decided to leave after the second
season.
On 8 Feb 1999, WRabkin wrote:
> >In truth the reason was that nobody was watching. Because it was a
> >Speilberg production the network had to sign on for 2 seasons up front
>
Invid Fan
<mel...@csi.com.spamaway> wrote:
> John Donaldson wrote:
>
> > In truth the reason was that nobody was watching. Because it was a
> > Speilberg production the network had to sign on for 2 seasons up front
> > (like EARTH II).
>
> Hang on though, Earth II never made a second season... so errrmmm... what?
>
From what I remember, NBC told Speilberg that they could have either a
third season of SeaQuest (giving them enough episodes for daily
syndication outside of the Sci-Fi Channel), or the second season of
Earth II. They picked SeaQuest.
--
Chris Mack "You do NOT, I repeat, do NOT ask a guest in my
'Invid Fan' home to make a PILLAR OF FIRE!!"
"I asked him IF he knew how!! IF! IF! IF!!"
In...@localnet.com -Cerebus:Jaka's Story
God Of Tapes
<45CFEAEC27D3EE9B.4B47198C...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
prof...@airmail.net (C. J. Walther) wrote:
> On 7 Feb 1999 15:36:05 GMT, oooor...@aol.com (OoooRHoooo) wrote:
>
> >I've been re-watching seaQuest on the Sci-Fi channel over the last
month or so
> >and I am wondering why there were so many cast changes during the show's
> >original run?
> >
> >It seems like half the cast was replaced after the first season and more were
> >replaced after the second season.
> >
> >Character's who left the series: (I may have forgotton some)
> >1. Westphalen (sp?)
> >2. Crocker
> >3. Shan
> >4. Hitchcock
> >5. Smith
> >6. Brody
> >7. Noyce
> >8. Bridger
> >9. Krieg
> >10. The bald guy on the bridge
> >11. Ortiz
> >
> >Did all these people want out on their own or were they all fired?
> >
> >What's the story?
> >
> >oRHo
>
>
>
> The reason is simple...the show had no ratings...The reason..the
> stories could have been written by a 4 year old with a crayon...It is
> standard SOP in TV networks to fire the cast, then bring in a high
> paid staff and actors, spend millions on non creative, non scientific
> special effects that look great but do nothing for the overall
> story....No one ever thinks to spend 50 bucks more to get a good
> script which is the problem to begin with. They tried to save the show
> with new and maybe betters actors when all they needed was someone who
> knew what the hell a submarine does.
>
> Boojie
The show went from enviromentalist PC to shlocky sci-fi to miltary ( I
personally liked the military version. Michael ironside was a lot better
Captain than Schieder ). It might have been wiser, considering the entire
crew was stuck on an alien planet at the end of the second season, to have
started the third season with an entirely new crew, especially since it
was set ten years in the future ( And their explanation for the second
season crew's return was incredibly lame ).
God Of Tapes
(nancy mathews) wrote:
> OoooRHoooo (oooor...@aol.com) wrote:
> : I've been re-watching seaQuest on the Sci-Fi channel over the last
month or so
> : and I am wondering why there were so many cast changes during the show's
> : original run?
> :
> : It seems like half the cast was replaced after the first season and
more were
> : replaced after the second season.
> :
> : Character's who left the series: (I may have forgotton some)
> : 1. Westphalen (sp?)
> : 2. Crocker
> : 3. Shan
> : 4. Hitchcock
> : 5. Smith
> : 6. Brody
> : 7. Noyce
> : 8. Bridger
> : 9. Krieg
> : 10. The bald guy on the bridge
> : 11. Ortiz
> :
> : Did all these people want out on their own or were they all fired?
> :
> : What's the story?
> :
> : oRHo
>
> Because the ratings weren't there, partly because LNC was going pretty
> strong 1st season, The way I heard it, was that someone either the
> NBC suits, or the producers of the show, brought in a sort of audience
> reaction poll. Those most of the audience liked were kept, and those
> that didn't click with the audience were 'Let Go'. The reason
> Stephanie Beecham was not on 2nd year was her own choice. The
> production moved to a big sea tank built in Florida, and Stephanie did
> NOT want to move with it, so she quit. They also decided to hire
> a younger looking crew to capitalize on attracting and keeping the
> Johnathan Brandis followings. Frankly I can't stand any season of
> this thing but the first, but I refused to miss Lois & Clark to see it,
> after I discovered LNC first season.
>
> Oh well, too many cooks...
>
> Nancy
> nmat...@indiana.edu
I understand that Stacey Haiduk left for the same reason...the move to Florida.
God Of Tapes
Donaldson) wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Feb 1999 13:03:07 -0600, WWS <wsch...@tyler.net> wrote:
> >OoooRHoooo wrote:
> >> I've been re-watching seaQuest on the Sci-Fi channel over the last
month or so
> >> and I am wondering why there were so many cast changes during the show's
> >> original run?
> >> Did all these people want out on their own or were they all fired?
>
> >They kept having sudden attacks of good taste, a rare thing in
>
> In truth the reason was that nobody was watching. Because it was a
> Speilberg production the network had to sign on for 2 seasons up front
> (like EARTH II). It had a great slot on Sunday night....Uh! nobody
> watched!!!!
Yeah, but EARTH 2 never went past year 1.
>
> IMHO..the basic problem was they never really identified what the
> program was. Kept reading inner industry stuff about how they were
> going to merchandise Darwin (ala: Lassie). The promo material kept
> pushing the science aspect(same problem VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE
> SEA had it;s first season).
I think another problem was the show was so family-oriented in the first
two years that you thought Disney was putting the series out. The show
didn't have any focus or continuity until the third season and, by then,
it was too late.
>
> So 2nd season they housecleaned and went more juvenile and Sci-fi.
> Uh!! Didnt help!
I wonder what was going through their minds when they got scripts like the
Greek Gods episode or the monster plants show?
>
> IMHO These were all changes they should have done by the 4th show
> (season 1) Didn't help that Schneider was badmouthing the show.
Well, in his defense, it wasn't the show he signed up for, obviously. He
probably thought it would be like 12 O'CLOCK HIGH, where his character
would a focal point of command and deal with all these problems. Instead,
" Lucas " became the star and Scheider a " father figure ".
God Of Tapes
<Pine.A41.3.95.990208...@black.weeg.uiowa.edu>, Sandra
Ballasch <ball...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
> Personal opinions differ. I loved first season - especially the pilot;
> tolerated a good deal of second - even if I had to hold my nose over the
> bimbo casting; despised most of the third season - the time travel
> plotline was a)stupid and b)never followed up by the writers.
>
> Sandra Ballasch
>
> Oh, yes - from what I understand all the cast who left were fired except
> Edward Kerr and Roy Scheider - both decided to leave after the second
> season.
>
>
You mean Jonathan Brandis and Ted Raimi were fired....Strange, I saw them
in Season 3, as well as the DeLuise brothers. Maybe you could qualify that
statement?
The time travel...You mean " Second Chances "? Well, it's really hard to
follow up on something when you are canceled mid-season. How about all the
stories they never followed up on SQ DSV? Like the Charlton heston
show..or The Regulator?
How about Michael Parks and Shelly Hack's characters from the pilot? It
seemed like they would return and never did. It's funny, but even a
character from SQ DSV, played by Jonathan Banks, got a sequel episode...on
2032.
At least 2032 had FOCUS. It wasn't trying to throw everything, including
the kitchen sink, out to grab viewers.
But that's only my opinion.
God Of Tapes
(WRabkin) wrote:
> >In truth the reason was that nobody was watching. Because it was a
> >Speilberg production the network had to sign on for 2 seasons up front
>
> Actually, when seaQuest was on Sunday, it split the available audience pretty
> evenly with Lois and Clark. And the premiere was huge -- yes, you can
buy a big
> opening -- while the ratings slid slowly over the next two years.
I thought they did a faster spiral than that, considering the second show
was about rescuing a sick dolphin.
>
> The reason for all the shuffling of cast, as I understand it -- and I only got
> there in year 3 -- was that the show was never properly conceived or
developed.
> Because of Spielberg's name, NBC ordered two full seasons of the show without
> even seeing a script. Two years ordered off the concept alone.
>
> If you've seen the pilot, you know what went wrong. It was, frankly,
awful. The
> characters shallow and cartoonish, the concept nebulous, the conflicts just
> plain silly.
>
> In a normal development process, these problems would have been ironed out
> during the pilot process -- or the show wouldn't have been picked up. But this
> was a two-year order. So the original writer was shoved aside, and other
> writer/producers brought in to "fix" the pilot. Still with no clear vision.
> Over the course of the first season, a series of writer/producers came in,
> each trying his own way to fix the show -- hence the varying tones and styles
> of the episodes.
>
> By season two, there were two showrunners in place, which is a certain recipe
> for disaster. David Burke and Patrick Hasburgh -- again, I wasn't there --
> spent the year warring over control, and there was not one firm opinion in
> charge. Again, the show was all over the map.
>
> By the beginning of the third season, Hasburgh was the show's sole showrunner,
> and to my mind, that was the only season of the show that demonstrated any
> consistency in tone. Some people hate what the show turned into that year, but
> to my mind, it at least had an idea of where it was going.
Hear! hear!
>
> Of course, even if what we were doing was brilliant -- and that's an
argument I
> won't get into -- I believe that year 3 is too late to fix a show that's been
> rotten for two years. Who's going to tune in now?
Not to mention that SQ 2032 was only brought into the schedule because NBC
yanked a " Supertruck " series from their line-up at the last minute, that
SQ 2032 was generally unpromoted, and that the rep of SQ DSV, aided by
Scheider's vocal complaints, were enough to keep new viewers from sampling
SQ 2032.
Karen Kaiser
The fans couldn't watch because they never knew if it'd be on or not. Like
that time NBC showed Bird on a wire as Sun's movie 3 weeks in a row
instead of showing Seaquest which was listed as supposed to be having
aired on sun at that time.
> Personal opinions differ. I loved first season - especially the pilot;
> tolerated a good deal of second - even if I had to hold my nose over the
> bimbo casting; despised most of the third season - the time travel
> plotline was a)stupid and b)never followed up by the writers.
>
> Sandra Ballasch
>
> Oh, yes - from what I understand all the cast who left were fired except
> Edward Kerr and Roy Scheider - both decided to leave after the second
> season.
>
>
>
> On 8 Feb 1999, WRabkin wrote:
>
> > >In truth the reason was that nobody was watching. Because it was a
> > >Speilberg production the network had to sign on for 2 seasons up front
> >
> > Actually, when seaQuest was on Sunday, it split the available audience pretty
> > evenly with Lois and Clark. And the premiere was huge -- yes, you can buy a big
> > opening -- while the ratings slid slowly over the next two years.
> >
> > The reason for all the shuffling of cast, as I understand it -- and I only got
> > there in year 3 -- was that the show was never properly conceived or developed.
> > Because of Spielberg's name, NBC ordered two full seasons of the show without
> > even seeing a script. Two years ordered off the concept alone.
> >
> > If you've seen the pilot, you know what went wrong. It was, frankly, awful. The
> > characters shallow and cartoonish, the concept nebulous, the conflicts just
> > plain silly.
> >
> > In a normal development process, these problems would have been ironed out
> > during the pilot process -- or the show wouldn't have been picked up. But this
> > was a two-year order. So the original writer was shoved aside, and other
> > writer/producers brought in to "fix" the pilot. Still with no clear vision.
> > Over the course of the first season, a series of writer/producers came in,
> > each trying his own way to fix the show -- hence the varying tones and styles
> > of the episodes.
> >
> > By season two, there were two showrunners in place, which is a certain recipe
> > for disaster. David Burke and Patrick Hasburgh -- again, I wasn't there --
> > spent the year warring over control, and there was not one firm opinion in
> > charge. Again, the show was all over the map.
> >
> > By the beginning of the third season, Hasburgh was the show's sole showrunner,
> > and to my mind, that was the only season of the show that demonstrated any
> > consistency in tone. Some people hate what the show turned into that year, but
> > to my mind, it at least had an idea of where it was going.
> >
Karen Kaiser
the 1st season. It's when NBC started playing eeny meeny miney mo with the
airing of Seaquest is when LNC started picking up viewers because Seaquest
viewers just got tired of NBC's polticial games.
> OoooRHoooo (oooor...@aol.com) wrote:
> : I've been re-watching seaQuest on the Sci-Fi channel over the last month or so
> : and I am wondering why there were so many cast changes during the show's
> : original run?
WRabkin
seaQuest ordered off the concept -- still an odd, and rarely successful way to
do business.
It was Amazing Stories that got the pilot-less two-season order.
Franklin Hummel
Too easy...
-- Franklin Hummel [ hum...@world.std.com ]
--
====================================================================
"The universe is not only queerer than we imagine, but it is
queerer than we can imagine". -- J.B.S. Haldane
====================================================================
Sandra Ballasch
both going for basically the same audience. The networks stupidly
decided to .keep them facing off against one another for the second
seasons. NBC even more stupidly decided that the only audience that
mattered was male and played with the shows cast demographics to make
all the characters (with the sole exception of Roy Scheider) very very
young.
The subject of which version of the show is good, better or best or
bad, worse or terrible depends largely on what you wanted from the
show. I know of many who enjoyed the environmental tone and the near
future setting of first season. I also know those who liked the
military tone of the aborted season three. All of the above grew
frustrated with the constant changes, the irregular scheduling and the
bimbo invasion after first season.
Sandra Ballasch
Gharlane of Eddore
sandra-...@uiowa.edu (Sandra Ballasch) writes:
>
> Both seaQuest and L&C were doing fine. The problem was that they were
> both going for basically the same audience. The networks stupidly
> decided to .keep them facing off against one another for the second
> seasons. NBC even more stupidly decided that the only audience that
> mattered was male and played with the shows cast demographics to make
> all the characters (with the sole exception of Roy Scheider) very very
> young.
>
There were a few other changes; Thania St. John got zorped off L&C,
and they dumped "Cat" Grant, played by Tracy Scoggins, after realizing
that even after they started writing her as a dumb bimbo instead of a
savvy, aggressive career person, she was *still* stealing the show...
no one was looking at Teri Hatcher when Scoggins was in frame, so
T.S. had to go. Lord knows I'm no worshipper at the feet of Thania
St. John, with some of the sillinesses she's pulled; but I think
it's very interesting that her departure from L&C coincided with
the horrible change of mood, from something *enjoyable* to a really
expensive romance novel with FX work that fewer people watched each
week.
>
> The subject of which version of the show is good, better or best or
> bad, worse or terrible depends largely on what you wanted from the
> show. I know of many who enjoyed the environmental tone and the near
> future setting of first season. I also know those who liked the
> military tone of the aborted season three. All of the above grew
> frustrated with the constant changes, the irregular scheduling and the
> bimbo invasion after first season.
>
Not really. The first year of "SinkQuest" had no more "science" or
"reality" to it than any of the subsequent years; they paid lip service
to the concept by putting Bob Ballard in the end credits to do brief
spot lectures, and then squinched him to one side to run promos, and
blitzed his sound track to run promos, and 99% of the viewers never
*did* figure out what he was there for.
The "military tone" of season three was kiddie-fantasy created by a
pack of people who'd never served day one in the military in their
lives; they had no concept of military courtesy, behavior of command
officers, military ethics, or any of a number of things that could
have added immeasurably to the quality and tone of the series.
The closest thing I *ever* saw to an actual military officer in
that series was the early-sixties naval intelligence officer in
Eastlake's "SECOND CHANCE" script, and that was apparently a
one-time fluke. ( Eastlake is not God's Gift To Scriptwriting,
but compared to the rest of the crud we were seeing on the show,
that one looked okay.)
Michael Ironside, who's a heck of a dude and one of my favorite
actors, has no idea how a command officer speaks and moves, and
he wasn't even able to do ten good pushups on camera in one scene.
( Note that Ironside thinks Heinlein's "STARSHIP TROOPER" is
"fascist propaganda," which means he either hasn't read the book,
or doesn't understand it. This is not really a problem, of
course, since a good actor plays the part as written and directed,
and no one cares about his personal opinions if the role is done
right.... but it wasn't written, it was TYPED, and the directors
didn't know how to handle it, and Ironside didn't have enough
experience to do more than "Tough Guy Type 1-G." )
"SinkQuest" was, first, last, and always, a high-budget fantasy,
made by people who had no idea what they were trying to do, and
failing miserably. It was a Shining Beacon Of Bad Example
until it was exceeded by "EARTH 2" and "SPACE: ABOVE & BEYOND."
In short, it even failed at being the worst.
( And how the HECK could Kathy Evison's character stay in uniform
long enough to earn a commission without ever having learned to
salute? Every single week, that same open-credits intro of
Ms. Evison trying to salute..... and don't get me wrong, I
*like* Evison, she's a sharp performer. ( One of our home-town
girls from the California Central Valley. )
I'll shut up now.
John Donaldson
Tapes) wrote:
>In article <19990208100921...@ng-cc1.aol.com>, wra...@aol.com
>(WRabkin) wrote:
Oh! Forgot avout that......L&C started out low in the ratings if
memory server me well but built as the chemistry between the leads
began to work.
>>- while the ratings slid slowly over the next two years.
>was about rescuing a sick dolphin.
script that VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA didn't get to till the
10th or 11th episode).
>> The reason for all the shuffling of cast, as I understand it -- and I only got
>> there in year 3 -- was that the show was never properly conceived or
>developed.
>> Because of Spielberg's name, NBC ordered two full seasons of the show without
>> even seeing a script. Two years ordered off the concept alone.
>>
>> If you've seen the pilot, you know what went wrong. It was, frankly,
>awful. The
>> characters shallow and cartoonish, the concept nebulous, the conflicts just
>> plain silly.
VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA syndrome
>
timpie...@gmail.com
>
> >I've been re-watching seaQuest on the Sci-Fi channel over the last month or so
> >and I am wondering why there were so many cast changes during the show's
> >original run?
> >
> >It seems like half the cast was replaced after the first season and more were
> >replaced after the second season.
> >
> >Character's who left the series: (I may have forgotton some)
> >1. Westphalen (sp?)
> >2. Crocker
> >3. Shan
> >4. Hitchcock
> >5. Smith
> >6. Brody
> >7. Noyce
> >8. Bridger
> >9. Krieg
> >10. The bald guy on the bridge
> >11. Ortiz
> >
> >Did all these people want out on their own or were they all fired?
> >
> >What's the story?
> >
> >oRHo
>
>
>
> stories could have been written by a 4 year old with a crayon...It is
> standard SOP in TV networks to fire the cast, then bring in a high
> paid staff and actors, spend millions on non creative, non scientific
> special effects that look great but do nothing for the overall
> story....No one ever thinks to spend 50 bucks more to get a good
> script which is the problem to begin with. They tried to save the show
> with new and maybe betters actors when all they needed was someone who
> knew what the hell a submarine does.
>
> Boojie
But as always, instead of taking blame from those that controlled everything, blame the cast members.
But truth be told.... the stores were very good, no 4 year old could be that creative, so not sure what you are talking about. The cast was cased just right in the beginning.
It is now on Netflix, and this is one out of a few series I can keep watching over and over from time to time.
This is what you call GOOD TV. Right next to the Gilmore Girls. There is NOT much GOOD TV on today.When you have to flip through channels all the time with over 200 channels and can not find NOTHING to watch.... that IS the problem.
Today, Freeform Disney Channel, I can not count how many times a month they keep playing Harry Potter, and MANY other movies, over and over and over EVERY month.
The same with other channels, they keep playing the same movies over and over and over and over, and maybe once every two or 3 weeks, they will play a new movie.
It is getting so bad, that I pay $130 a month for cable alone, and every night I can not find NOTHING to watch. You can only watch Harry Potter, and many others so many times.
Yet when you complain about it, the channels answers are always..." we do that because people work during that time and miss the shows, so we play them over and over so everyone can watch them on different nights/days".
I then reply, EVERY person I know have DVR recording in their cable boxes, if they can not watch a movie they want to watch, they record it and watch it later on when they are able to, so your reasoning does not exist at all.
They always reply..." ohhh, ummm, aaa, with no real answer that makes any since. All it is about is CHEAP programming, to make the most off these movies with commercials so CEO's can pay for their $100,000 a year club memberships, and their 100,000 sq. ft. home is not big enough so they have to build larger, and to purchase more limos so they match outfits for different occasions, and collect cars that cost $100,000 to $3 million dollars, and build a $10 million dollar garage to display the cars with expensive hydraulic lifts etc.
So they can tell their employees they can not afford to pay them decent, and over work them, but give them self $25 million dollar raises thinking only about themselves.
It is a known fact, that they started to advertise Happy Potter 2 years before it was in theater with Harry Potter novelties, school supplies etc.
By the time each Harry Potter movie came out, they already made enough money to cover all costs on each movie, x 100 billion over.
Do not get me wrong, I love Harry Potter, but playing it 20 times a month over and over and over is ridiculous.
I also love Disney World...do not get me wrong, but I do not like how things are fun, most people do not see....
On the news one time, Disney did their yearly physical year. They said Disney made a profit of over $780 billion dollars. That is after new worlds are built, after new Disney Lands are built across seas, insurance, employee's salaries, and everything.
Yet you hear ALL THE TIME, Disney needs to cut back on staff all the time because they are not making enough money... and have to raise admission and hotel prices all the time.....THE TRUTH IS.... the stock holders are not pocketing enough money, and let people go, and hire new people back to bass pay.
Their $200 million dollar pay check a year is not enough, they want MORE.
So they play top movies over and over and over because it is now 100 percent profit.
Disney has more then enough movies to play a different one every night of the year. Disney has more then enough Christmas movies to play every night during 25 days of Christmas.
Same with Hallmark Channel. This year they start Christmas Movies Oct. 29th, Last year it was the second weekend in November. and advertise they have 19 new Christmas movies, yet in almost 60 days before Christmas, they will play repeats from the past year or two Christmas movies over and over and over and over and over, when they already made back the costs of those movies made.
Would not surprise me, next year, they will start Christmas Movies on October 1st.
It is becoming ridiculous. They advertise 25 days of Christmas, yet truth be told they are actually doing 60 days of Christmas.
By the time Christmas does come, people are SICK of Christmas. and I LOVE Christmas, but almost 60 days before Christmas...Christmas Movies are playing?... Come on.
All this year on Hallmark Channel and many others and Freeform, they have all played the Christmas Movie "Pollar Express" at least twice a month and other Christmas Movies all year long.
I love Christmas Movies like any one else, but limits need to be put on them.
We pay over $130 a month for cable, and mostly ALL i ever see are, 30 minute commercials pushing products, shopping networks, repeats of movies, when they are a million movies [or more] they could play, it is NOT like they have no other movies to play every night.
And they wonder why people are watching Netflix more and more, and cable TV less. At least you can pick and choose from 1,000's of movies online and get a selection of them with out having to watch them over and over and over and over like on TV.
Geeee... Netflix for under $10 a month.... and have 1,000's of movies to watch when you want, or Cable TV basic for $130 a month, and see 1 or 2 new movies a month... if that,,,,but mostly repeats
timpie...@gmail.com
> >
> > I've been re-watching seaQuest on the Sci-Fi channel over the last month or so
> > and I am wondering why there were so many cast changes during the show's
> > original run?
> >
> > It seems like half the cast was replaced after the first season and more were
> > replaced after the second season.
> >
> >
> > What's the story?
>
> read the script.
>
> --
> __________________________________________________WWS_____________
>
> It's a little known fact that the Dark Ages were caused by the
> Y1K problem.
Dark Ages had better programming and better movies on TV too. Today, they suck mostly.
So to me it is the Dark Ages now, repeats, junk series, sex, sex, sex, etc.
If you are not hot looking, you do not become popular. yet i have seen people that were not perfect or hot, that acted far better then hot looking people do, yet do not succeed like hot people do that can not act.
These are the FACTS, and it is sad...really sad. I care about how well people act, no matter young, old, hot, out of shape, etc.
timpie...@gmail.com
> >In truth the reason was that nobody was watching. Because it was a
> >Speilberg production the network had to sign on for 2 seasons up front
>
> The reason for all the shuffling of cast, as I understand it -- and I only got
> there in year 3 -- was that the show was never properly conceived or developed.
> Because of Spielberg's name, NBC ordered two full seasons of the show without
> even seeing a script. Two years ordered off the concept alone.
>
> If you've seen the pilot, you know what went wrong. It was, frankly, awful. The
> characters shallow and cartoonish, the concept nebulous, the conflicts just
> plain silly.
>
> during the pilot process -- or the show wouldn't have been picked up. But this
> was a two-year order. So the original writer was shoved aside, and other
> writer/producers brought in to "fix" the pilot. Still with no clear vision.
> Over the course of the first season, a series of writer/producers came in,
> each trying his own way to fix the show -- hence the varying tones and styles
> of the episodes.
>
> By season two, there were two showrunners in place, which is a certain recipe
> for disaster. David Burke and Patrick Hasburgh -- again, I wasn't there --
> spent the year warring over control, and there was not one firm opinion in
> charge. Again, the show was all over the map.
>
> By the beginning of the third season, Hasburgh was the show's sole showrunner,
> and to my mind, that was the only season of the show that demonstrated any
> consistency in tone. Some people hate what the show turned into that year, but
> to my mind, it at least had an idea of where it was going.
>
> Of course, even if what we were doing was brilliant -- and that's an argument I
> won't get into -- I believe that year 3 is too late to fix a show that's been
> rotten for two years. Who's going to tune in now?
Luis and Clark, the episode stories kept duplicating over and over.
timpie...@gmail.com
Guess you did not know, right now SeaQuest is on Netflix and has 100's of million viewers. but when they had Luis and Clark on Netflix, they took it off after a few months due to lack of viewers. HMMM interesting, isn't it?
I base what I say on Facts.
Your Name
> On Sunday, February 7, 1999 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-5, C. J. Walther wrote:
> > On 7 Feb 1999 15:36:05 GMT, oooor...@aol.com (OoooRHoooo) wrote:
> >
> > >I've been re-watching seaQuest on the Sci-Fi channel over the last month
> > >or so and I am wondering why there were so many cast changes during the
> > >show's original run?
> > >
> > >It seems like half the cast was replaced after the first season and more
> > >were replaced after the second season.
> > >
> > >Character's who left the series: (I may have forgotton some)
> > >1. Westphalen (sp?)
> > >2. Crocker
> > >3. Shan
> > >4. Hitchcock
> > >5. Smith
> > >6. Brody
> > >7. Noyce
> > >8. Bridger
> > >9. Krieg
> > >10. The bald guy on the bridge
> > >11. Ortiz
> > >
> > >Did all these people want out on their own or were they all fired?
> > >
> > >What's the story?
> >
> > stories could have been written by a 4 year old with a crayon...It is
> > standard SOP in TV networks to fire the cast, then bring in a high
> > paid staff and actors, spend millions on non creative, non scientific
> > special effects that look great but do nothing for the overall
> > story....No one ever thinks to spend 50 bucks more to get a good
> > script which is the problem to begin with. They tried to save the show
> > with new and maybe betters actors when all they needed was someone who
> > knew what the hell a submarine does.
>
> Replacing people just made it worse. I liked the original cast right from the
> start.
>
> But as always, instead of taking blame from those that controlled everything,
> blame the cast members.
>
> But truth be told.... the stores were very good, no 4 year old could be that
> creative, so not sure what you are talking about. The cast was cased just
> right in the beginning.
The real problem is that, as usual, they simply ran out of even
remotely sensible story ideas in season one ... hence the submarine
suddenly and ridiculously became spaceship. :-\
camille...@gmail.com
daniel.c...@gmail.com
But compared to what new series were made since Seaquest in the 25 years following, not very many are actually as good, and definitely none were ever made in a similar concept.
I thought Seaquest was decent when it aired in 1990s, but today I think it's one of the most original and best TV shows ever made. Sure the plots are silly sometimes, but at least they are semi coherent unlike all modern TV shows that have zero coherency or sense or decency, half the script is swearing and the other half brutal negativism. If I wanted to see that I'd take a walk outside in the street.
Seaquest has showed us something you can't find out in the street, and its production value has aged like good wine, and with exceptional Blu-ray release made available recently it now looks stunning on modern equipment too. Very refreshing among all the Netflix crap.