I think the shows that have doomed sci fi (at least for the foreseeable future) are those shows that brought in the main stream audiences. This started with th X Files. Then Lost was even more bigger in the main stream. I remember the discussions of polar bears and mysterious islands at work from folk who never watch cult shows. BSG and Heroes were similar, remember all the talk of "Save the cheerleader, save the world"?
This created a bit of a catch 22 situation, these shows created an interest in cult shows and probably got shows like FlashForward or The Event made. But these shows also raised expectations for the kind of ratings a cult show can generate.
The number of times I read in the Lost or BSG forum something along the lines of "I don't normally watch sci fi but this show is amazing". These were cult shows but with non-cult audiences.
The irony is that not one of these shows fulfilled their potential, none of them lived up to the hype.
The X Files went around in circles and never really found a way to any resolution.
Lost built up an amazingly layered universe of mysteries, intriging characters and storylines. But to tie this all up would have taken 3 seasons, but they rushed it all into one final season that failed ultimately.
Heroes had a great first season but then just flapped about for a few more season with no direction, story, characters that came and went and who changed powers and motivations at the drop of a hat.
BSG had a great first season exploring Man v Machine, Science v Faith, Military v Civilian politics, et al. But then it just turned into a cylon soap opera of angst and pettiness.
So they were ratings successes but sci fi / cult failures IMO.
Whereas sci fi greats like B5, Farscape, DS9, Firefly etc, never broke the bank on ratings but are remembered fondly by sci fi fans.
ahh the end of the the Shadow War...."Now get the hell out of our Galaxy" lol thats how it came across lol
have to admit tho how the Vorlons "turned" so to speak into as bad as the Shadows etc. was a clever twist not in the Vorlons eyes but everyone elses was excellent writing by JMS
I know most will disagree, but I thought DS9 was naff. Actually prefered Voyager (as much as that wasn't great either), with Enterprise having that good final season, but being naff beforehand. NG still rules the roost on storylines.
BSG wins overall, but one could argue it's not "ST kinda sci fi" given it's more a political/religous drama that just happens to be based in space. Utterly amazing regardless, bar the weak episodes between the writer's strike. Stargate Universe is probably the most disapointing ever, given it's got the money, but a script written by monkeys. B5 was good, but lacked any decent production money. You could tell those ships were something off a commodore 64.
I think the shows that have doomed sci fi (at least for the foreseeable future) are those shows that brought in the main stream audiences. This started with th X Files. Then Lost was even more bigger in the main stream. I remember the discussions of polar bears and mysterious islands at work from folk who never watch cult shows. BSG and Heroes were similar, remember all the talk of "Save the cheerleader, save the world"?
This created a bit of a catch 22 situation, these shows created an interest in cult shows and probably got shows like FlashForward or The Event made. But these shows also raised expectations for the kind of ratings a cult show can generate.
The number of times I read in the Lost or BSG forum something along the lines of "I don't normally watch sci fi but this show is amazing". These were cult shows but with non-cult audiences.
The irony is that not one of these shows fulfilled their potential, none of them lived up to the hype.
The X Files went around in circles and never really found a way to any resolution.
Lost built up an amazingly layered universe of mysteries, intriging characters and storylines. But to tie this all up would have taken 3 seasons, but they rushed it all into one final season that failed ultimately.
Heroes had a great first season but then just flapped about for a few more season with no direction, story, characters that came and went and who changed powers and motivations at the drop of a hat.
BSG had a great first season exploring Man v Machine, Science v Faith, Military v Civilian politics, et al. But then it just turned into a cylon soap opera of angst and pettiness.
So they were ratings successes but sci fi / cult failures IMO.
Whereas sci fi greats like B5, Farscape, DS9, Firefly etc, never broke the bank on ratings but are remembered fondly by sci fi fans.
Your analysis of Heroes, Lost and X-Files wasn't bad but BSG was nothing like you made out. For a start they had a set plan from the start of how long it would last (unlike the others) and at no point was it anything like a soap opera. If you actually watched the show you'd of known this, pettiness is something you cannot aim at the show.
Now on to your sci fi greats
B5 = Not a big fan but friends of mine were
Farscape = Interesting but didn't know where it was going or how to get there
DS9 = Dull cast with the lead unable to hold his own when put up against other star trek figure heads (kirk, picard, janeway etc). Even with Worf added it just couldn't spark, that's why the company gave up and threw all the money at Voyager (enter 7 of 9).
Firefly is the token "could of been great show" but in reality it would of ended up like Dollshouse. The characters lacked any real depth and further shows would of exposed this obvious problem.
One of the reasons now why shows get cancelled so quickly is because there is far more choice now, a couple of bad episodes and you're history
Your analysis of Heroes, Lost and X-Files wasn't bad but BSG was nothing like you made out. For a start they had a set plan from the start of how long it would last (unlike the others)
Nonsense. Next you'll be telling us they had the story planned out from the start as well - they didnt. They made a lot of up as they went along. Every detail was NOT planned in advance. Much of the show's major developments came not as a result of some overarching show bible, but rather as a result of the writers saying "Hey, wouldn't it be interesting if we did XYZ?"
and at no point was it anything like a soap opera. If you actually watched the show you'd of known this, pettiness is something you cannot aim at the show.
You must fallen asleep during all that Starbuck/Anders, Apollo/Dualla nonsense then. Not only was that stuff soap opera, it was terrible soap opera.
Now on to your sci fi greats
B5 = Not a big fan but friends of mine were
Farscape = Interesting but didn't know where it was going or how to get there
DS9 = Dull cast with the lead unable to hold his own when put up against other star trek figure heads (kirk, picard, janeway etc). Even with Worf added it just couldn't spark, that's why the company gave up and threw all the money at Voyager (enter 7 of 9).
Firefly is the token "could of been great show" but in reality it would of ended up like Dollshouse. The characters lacked any real depth and further shows would of exposed this obvious problem.
This just strikes me as attention seeking.
Originally Posted by srhDS
Lost built up an amazingly layered universe of mysteries, intriging characters and storylines. But to tie this all up would have taken 3 seasons, but they rushed it all into one final season that failed ultimately.
I'd disagree with that. A few more episodes wouldnt have hurt, but overall I was more than happy with the final season, as were many others (many others werent, I know).
ahh the end of the the Shadow War...."Now get the hell out of our Galaxy" lol thats how it came across lol
have to admit tho how the Vorlons "turned" so to speak into as bad as the Shadows etc. was a clever twist not in the Vorlons eyes but everyone elses was excellent writing by JMS
I don't think it was a surprise tho'; there were lots of hints at a darker side to their nature. They were bad guy's just not evil. Looking back on the series (and I still dip in and out of it via DVD but I tend to pick the eps I want to watch) it was still streets ahead of the competion.
Your analysis of Heroes, Lost and X-Files wasn't bad but BSG was nothing like you made out. For a start they had a set plan from the start of how long it would last (unlike the others) and at no point was it anything like a soap opera. If you actually watched the show you'd of known this, pettiness is something you cannot aim at the show.
No, X-FIles started with a plan but once it became a "water cooler show" they started to wing it and IMO thats why it slowly died and to this day I have never seen the final episode, well most of the last season actually.
The movie was an extended episode with a big budget and special effects, I didn't bother with the 2nd movie which I imagine was more of the same.
The first season of Heroes follwed the comic, it the 2nd series onwards that got it wrong IMO and again theye were just winging it a lot of the time (of course the writers strike played its part here too)
BSG OTH worked because it was planned and thought out, thats why we plan things out. (aprt from a writers strike that kinda messed things up with a lot of weak eps, in the middle)
Something being soap opera doesn't automatically = crap, it s just another "artform". To dismiss something as "just soap opera" is little more than snobbery TBH.
Now on to your sci fi greats
B5 = Not a big fan but friends of mine were
Farscape = Interesting but didn't know where it was going or how to get there
DS9 = Dull cast with the lead unable to hold his own when put up against other star trek figure heads (kirk, picard, janeway etc). Even with Worf added it just couldn't spark, that's why the company gave up and threw all the money at Voyager (enter 7 of 9).
Firefly is the token "could of been great show" but in reality it would of ended up like Dollshouse. The characters lacked any real depth and further shows would of exposed this obvious problem.
B5 has been done in this thread so I'll not start again.
I really liked the ideas of Farscape but I don't think it had legs, altho I'd happily sit and watch Claudia Black just mooching about doing nothing in particluar (and we're back in the room!) Mind you I do think it got a bit caught up in its "muppetery" which detracted from the actual story.
DS9 was another good idea badly executed ( we know it was a good idea after all B5 was a huge success), yes the cast was poor but they weren't to blame for the general shoddiness of the show and the fact is, they were up against B5, in a manner of speaking and it was never gonna compete.
Firefly... great show if you like westerns, cos thats all it was. Cowboys in space. Some eps were good , some were bad. Serenity was a great movie tho and I still watch that.
One of the reasons now why shows get cancelled so quickly is because there is far more choice now, a couple of bad episodes and you're history
Nope, its because shareholders wanna see a return on their cash and they want it now! They're not prepared to wait an entire season until a show gets going to decide if its gonna be a hit or not, mind you I don't think audiences are either.
DS9 was another good idea badly executed ( we know it was a good idea after all B5 was a huge success), yes the cast was poor but they weren't to blame for the general shoddiness of the show and the fact is, they were up against B5, in a manner of speaking and it was never gonna compete.
DS9 Cast poor? In Star Trek terms it had the best cast.
Fair enough Avery Brooks isn't as talented as Patrick Stewart (not a great percentage are) or the charisma of Shatner (who despite being very watchable, isn't all that talented), but he was far from bad.
Colm Meany and René Auberjonois where probably second and third in the Trek acting stakes to Stewart. The rest of the cast fair enough aren't going to win many Oscars (I wasn't a fan of Nana Visitor or Terry Farrell - not in the acting stakes anyway), but compared to the likes of Frakes, Burton, Kelley, Doohan etc... they're not all that bad. The regular guest star's they had where also pretty damn good. Of all the debates I've seen about DS9, the quality of it's cast is rarely
B5's cast wasn't that great either. For every Andreas Katsulas you had there was Richard Biggs, or Michael O'Hare. It's reputation rests on the novel as a TV show approach (it's also pretty literate but I'm not convinced anyone but the die hards picks up that), but their is still a lot of dross in that show which gets forgotten (and I say that as a big fan of it) It was also incredibly pretentious and a little smug - considering it's often compared to Trek then that is a hell of a statement for me to make. I'm a fan of DS9 as well (best Trek by far for me), and it's only ever forums where I see it criticised so much (apart from the usual non-genre fans).
Smaller shows like X-Files will find it easier to get better casts together (it's easier to get quality if you have 2 leads, than 7+), but for larger casts it's BSG, or possibly Dollhouse (the problems I had with that show wasn't with the cast) which I thought had the best cast (there are probably others that I've never seen).
DS9 Cast poor? In Star Trek terms it had the best cast.
Fair enough Avery Brooks isn't as talented as Patrick Stewart (not a great percentage are) or the charisma of Shatner (who despite being very watchable, isn't all that talented), but he was far from bad.
Colm Meany and René Auberjonois where probably second and third in the Trek acting stakes to Stewart. The rest of the cast fair enough aren't going to win many Oscars (I wasn't a fan of Nana Visitor or Terry Farrell - not in the acting stakes anyway), but compared to the likes of Frakes, Burton, Kelley, Doohan etc... they're not all that bad. The regular guest star's they had where also pretty damn good. Of all the debates I've seen about DS9, the quality of it's cast is rarely
B5's cast wasn't that great either. For every Andreas Katsulas you had there was Richard Biggs, or Michael O'Hare. It's reputation rests on the novel as a TV show approach (it's also pretty literate but I'm not convinced anyone but the die hards picks up that), but their is still a lot of dross in that show which gets forgotten (and I say that as a big fan of it) It was also incredibly pretentious and a little smug - considering it's often compared to Trek then that is a hell of a statement for me to make. I'm a fan of DS9 as well (best Trek by far for me), and it's only ever forums where I see it criticised so much (apart from the usual non-genre fans).
Smaller shows like X-Files will find it easier to get better casts together (it's easier to get quality if you have 2 leads, than 7+), but for larger casts it's BSG, or possibly Dollhouse (the problems I had with that show wasn't with the cast) which I thought had the best cast (there are probably others that I've never seen).
I wasn't very clear, I wasn't comparing the cast of DS9 with the cast of B5, I was saying that DS9 as a "device/series/idea" was up against B5 which was arguably the daddy of space station based sci-fi. Any show that spans that length of time is gonna have bad eps.. I'm fairly sure I acknowledged that fact
For what its worth, I didn't think the cast of B5 were particularly great either but they at least had great writing / storyline to carry them through.
DS9 had its moments but on the whole it just didn't work for me. I've never felt the need to re-watch it for example and ultimately I can only tell it as I see it. (which is what other people are doing)
And I'm sorry but Avery Brooks? he'd give a tree a good run for its money.
I agree with Odo and O'Brian tho' both very good.
Terry Farrel? no. Micheal Dorn? Nope... apart from Next gen, have you seen him n anything else? he's poor... very poor.
I wasn't very clear, I wasn't comparing the cast of DS9 with the cast of B5, I was saying that DS9 as a "device/series/idea" was up against B5 which was arguably the daddy of space station based sci-fi. Any show that spans that length of time is gonna have bad eps.. I'm fairly sure I acknowledged that fact
For what its worth, I didn't think the cast of B5 were particularly great either but they at least had great writing / storyline to carry them through.
DS9 had its moments but on the whole it just didn't work for me. I've never felt the need to re-watch it for example and ultimately I can only tell it as I see it. (which is what other people are doing)
And I'm sorry but Avery Brooks? he'd give a tree a good run for its money.
I agree with Odo and O'Brian tho' both very good.
Terry Farrel? no. Micheal Dorn? Nope... apart from Next gen, have you seen him n anything else? he's poor... very poor.
Sorry, just my opinion
No worries, as for Michael Dorn - I though he was very good as Worf (especially in DS9), but would doubt him in any other role
and we're gonna have to agree to disagree over Avery Brookes
Louise Fletcher is an Oscar winning actress (One Flew Over the Cukoo's Nest). Whilst not a member of the main cast, she did play a significant role throughout most of the series as Kai Winn.
Louise Fletcher is an Oscar winning actress. Whilst not a member of the main cast, she did play a significant role throughout most of the series as Kai Winn.
No worries, as for Michael Dorn - I though he was very good as Worf (especially in DS9), but would doubt him in any other role
and we're gonna have to agree to disagree over Avery Brookes
Yes, good as worf.. because he was Worf, in the same way that Nimmoy was Spock.
well, I'll concede that if he (AB) had had more to work with perhaps I'd have seen a better "actor" but yes agree to disagree is the way forward
Louise Fletcher is an Oscar winning actress (One Flew Over the Cukoo's Nest). Whilst not a member of the main cast, she did play a significant role throughout most of the series as Kai Winn.
winning an oscar in one film doesn't automatically infer a great performance in another. Again, I think the biggest issue that the actors, good and bad, had to contend with in DS9 was the show. The stories were hacknied (sp?), it was all pretty unoriginal and lacked the dynamic of the other shows. Ironically, it did improve with the use of the Defiant and the whole shapeshifter/ Kardassian / J'emhadar (sp?) wars and IMO the reason for that was because they were no longer as trapped on an essentially static (in every sense of the word) platform.
Again, I think the biggest issue that the actors, good and bad, had to contend with in DS9 was the show. The stories were hacknied (sp?), it was all pretty unoriginal and lacked the dynamic of the other shows. Ironically, it did improve with the use of the Defiant and the whole shapeshifter/ Kardassian / J'emhadar (sp?) wars and IMO the reason for that was because they were no longer as trapped on an essentially static (in every sense of the word) platform.
You seem to be judging the programme on the first 2 seasons..... Not one of the Star Trek spin offs got going until their 3rd season and had there best days from their 4th seasons onwards.
winning an oscar in one film doesn't automatically infer a great performance in another.
Nope, but considering she was playing a similar type of queen bitch role I'd say we were guaranteed a pretty good performance - and we got it imo. I would be secretly admiring her sneaky political manipulations one minute, and the next minute hoping someone would punch her in the face. That, to me, suggests convincing and award winning acting.
People bang on about lack of originality in general. I can't think of a shallower argument. Honestly, if TV or movies were judged on originality we may as well all give up watching right now. Originality died a long time ago. All that's left, and has been left for a long time now, is recycling and repackaging.
You seem to be judging the programme on the first 2 seasons..... Not one of the Star Trek spin offs got going until their 3rd season and had there best days from their 4th seasons onwards.
Interestingly, this harps back on an earlier comment of mine.... how long should we have to wait before deciding a show is cr@p ? The Star Trek series all have LONG seasons...if I've given it a whole season, even 2 whole seasons... at what point am I justified in saying "actually, this isn't for me" ? My reasons for not liking it still stand. Or do I hang on grimly waiting hoping for something to improve?
And I've already said that I kinda liked some of the later stuff, just not enough to dive back into the series but the odd episode, yeah, they're good but not because I thinking the acting is better, its because the story was better and that lessened the impact of bad acting.
Interestingly, this harps back on an earlier comment of mine.... how long should we have to wait before deciding a show is cr@p ? The Star Trek series all have LONG seasons...if I've given it a whole season, even 2 whole seasons... at what point am I justified in saying "actually, this isn't for me" ? My reasons for not liking it still stand. Or do I hang on grimly waiting hoping for something to improve?
You can only judge something based on it's entirety.
You can say you give up on it because you didn't like it at the start, but you can't say you hated it all. Fair enough you admit you dipped in but it wasn't enough for you to stick with it, but you can only judge it by what you have seen.
By way of reversal I hate the film Saving Private Ryan (the majority of it), however I do love the opening beach invasion scene. It would be wrong of me to say the entire film is brilliant if I switched off immediately after that. It would also be wrong of me to say the "whole" film is bad just because I loathed what came after it.
Suspect not, there's very little new space based science fiction on any TV now, TV producers tend to go for the fluffy Earth based stuff like Lost and the Event etc
Nope, but considering she was playing a similar type of queen bitch role I'd say we were guaranteed a pretty good performance - and we got it imo. I would be secretly admiring her sneaky political manipulations one minute, and the next minute hoping someone would punch her in the face. That, to me, suggests convincing and award winning acting.
People bang on about lack of originality in general. I can't think of a shallower argument. Honestly, if TV or movies were judged on originality we may as well all give up watching right now. Originality died a long time ago. All that's left, and has been left for a long time now, is recycling and repackaging.
First, You think she was great, I don't *shrug*
Second, I mentioned originality once as part of the whole in terms of why I didn't like the show,not really banging on about it is it.
Third, to think of originality solely in terms of "a brand new Idea" is in itself pretty shallow and one dimensional.
For me, originality encompasses not only new ideas but taking a old idea and giving it a little spin, bringing something new to the party, which again IMO DS9 didn't do.
As I said, its just my opinion, we're not all gonna like the same stuff.
You can only judge something based on it's entirety.
You can say you give up on it because you didn't like it at the start, but you can't say you hated it all. Fair enough you admit you dipped in but it wasn't enough for you to stick with it, but you can only judge it by what you have seen.
By way of reversal I hate the film Saving Private Ryan (the majority of it), however I do love the opening beach invasion scene. It would be wrong of me to say the entire film is brilliant if I switched off immediately after that. It would also be wrong of me to say the "whole" film is bad just because I loathed what came after it.
Actually, I think all I've said is that I didn't like it because for me it wasn't very good and of course I can only judge by what I've seen... doesn't a show have a responsibilty (too big a word really but you get the idea) to make me want to tune in next week? If it doesn't make me do that then its failed.
Yes, DS9 did change and as I understand it, it changed because it was falling away ( I could be wrong about that), I gave it another go... it didn't catch me *shrug*
And that's fine. Although youre probably in the minority...which is also fine. Although, as already stated, if you havent seen the whole series your opinion is not a fully informed opinion, as as such carries little weight; it certainly doesnt carry as much weight as it would if you had watched the whole thing.
Second, I mentioned originality once as part of the whole in terms of why I didn't like the show,not really banging on about it is it.
You'll notice that when referring to originality
1. I didnt quote the paragraph in which you mention the lack of originality, and
2. I used the words, "People" and "in general"
My obesrvation was not to solely or specific to you, but if you want to think it's all about you then so be it.
Third, to think of originality solely in terms of "a brand new Idea" is in itself pretty shallow and one dimensional.
For me, originality encompasses not only new ideas but taking a old idea and giving it a little spin, bringing something new to the party, which again IMO DS9 didn't do.
Yeah, so in your eyes recycling and repackaging equates to originality? Sorry but that's not originality.
"Originality is the aspect of created or invented works by as being new or novel, and thus can be distinguished from reproductions, clones, forgeries, or derivative works. An original work is one not received from others nor one copied based on the work of others."
As I said, its just my opinion, we're not all gonna like the same stuff.
Anywhooo..... regardsless have a good one
You too. Look forward to agreeing/disagreeing with you again.
pettiness is something you cannot aim at the show.
You can't say that Cavil almost eliminating the human race because he resented the limitations of his fleshy human like form isn't even slightly petty?
Nonsense. Next you'll be telling us they had the story planned out from the start as well - they didnt. They made a lot of up as they went along. Every detail was NOT planned in advance. Much of the show's major developments came not as a result of some overarching show bible, but rather as a result of the writers saying "Hey, wouldn't it be interesting if we did XYZ?"
totally.
Chief finding about his wife was a cheating **** and number six losing her baby just so the importance of herra could be inserted into the story was not retcon?
The prosphesy that Starbuck was the bringer of death went where exactly?
Gata could hear the music but why?
BSG OTH worked because it was planned and thought out, thats why we plan things out. (aprt from a writers strike that kinda messed things up with a lot of weak eps, in the middle)
Something being soap opera doesn't automatically = crap, it s just another "artform". To dismiss something as "just soap opera" is little more than snobbery TBH.
So well planned out that they had to have a tv movie to retrofit the crappness of the last few season onto what had been pretty good first few seasons.
Soap Opera = Artform? you've lost me...
Soap Opera type material, ie relationships etc, can be done without being a soap opera.
For me, originality encompasses not only new ideas but taking a old idea and giving it a little spin, bringing something new to the party, which again IMO DS9 didn't do.
Even if we just limited that argument to just the Star Trek franchise, that's not true. TOS and TNG were an examination of issues through the vehicle of exploration - DS9 was far more static in nature, which sacrificed the spirit of adventure but allowed for a different perspective that wasn't possible in the earlier series.
DS9 also went after certain subjects that Trek had traditionally shied away from, ie. religion, politics etc.
Let's be fair, DS9 was the last time Star Trek was great (on TV). It was the last time that they did actually try something different, It wasn't just a rehash of TNG or TOS,
It had the most serialised nature of any of the Trek shows, and whilst it suffers in comparison to the superior B5, it was still a relatively decent effort. However, that shouldn't take away from the fact that the show was also capable of producing some excellent standalone episodes. Anyone who can't acknowledge the brilliance of episodes like Far Beyond the Stars, The Visitor or In the Pale Moonlight, they're just deluding themselves.
Re the cast, again, disagree entirely. DS9 had the most balanced cast of any of the shows. Was AB great? No, not great, certainly doesn't have the gravitas of Stewart, or the charisma of Shatner, but then again he's p1sses all over Mulgrew and Bakula from a great height.
Cirroc Lofton/Jake Sisko - compare and contrast with Wesley Crusher - no contest.
Rene Auberjonois, Armin Shimmerman, Colm Meaney, all fantastic. Louise Fletcher's already been mentioned, but then you also have Wallace Shawn, Marc Alaimo and Jeff Combes.
Again, let's be fair, most of the peripheral characters from DS9 are far better than the regular Voyager and Enterprise casts.
Rene Auberjonois, Armin Shimmerman, Colm Meaney, all fantastic. Louise Fletcher's already been mentioned, but then you also have Wallace Shawn, Marc Alaimo and Jeff Combes.
And I would add Andrew Robinson as Garak. Outstanding acting.
In this thread an awful lot of nonsense of a negative nature has been written about DS9. I chose to not to respond. I suppose this counts as some sort of response now.:)
Hmmm, nope. Not unless they could churn out episodes that are 90% crap filler with a twist at the end of each episode to make you want to come back next week
Comments
A prize if you correctly guess what I typed
I also quoted someone
This created a bit of a catch 22 situation, these shows created an interest in cult shows and probably got shows like FlashForward or The Event made. But these shows also raised expectations for the kind of ratings a cult show can generate.
The number of times I read in the Lost or BSG forum something along the lines of "I don't normally watch sci fi but this show is amazing". These were cult shows but with non-cult audiences.
The irony is that not one of these shows fulfilled their potential, none of them lived up to the hype.
The X Files went around in circles and never really found a way to any resolution.
Lost built up an amazingly layered universe of mysteries, intriging characters and storylines. But to tie this all up would have taken 3 seasons, but they rushed it all into one final season that failed ultimately.
Heroes had a great first season but then just flapped about for a few more season with no direction, story, characters that came and went and who changed powers and motivations at the drop of a hat.
BSG had a great first season exploring Man v Machine, Science v Faith, Military v Civilian politics, et al. But then it just turned into a cylon soap opera of angst and pettiness.
So they were ratings successes but sci fi / cult failures IMO.
Whereas sci fi greats like B5, Farscape, DS9, Firefly etc, never broke the bank on ratings but are remembered fondly by sci fi fans.
have to admit tho how the Vorlons "turned" so to speak into as bad as the Shadows etc. was a clever twist not in the Vorlons eyes but everyone elses was excellent writing by JMS
BSG wins overall, but one could argue it's not "ST kinda sci fi" given it's more a political/religous drama that just happens to be based in space. Utterly amazing regardless, bar the weak episodes between the writer's strike. Stargate Universe is probably the most disapointing ever, given it's got the money, but a script written by monkeys. B5 was good, but lacked any decent production money. You could tell those ships were something off a commodore 64.
Done
Your analysis of Heroes, Lost and X-Files wasn't bad but BSG was nothing like you made out. For a start they had a set plan from the start of how long it would last (unlike the others) and at no point was it anything like a soap opera. If you actually watched the show you'd of known this, pettiness is something you cannot aim at the show.
Now on to your sci fi greats
B5 = Not a big fan but friends of mine were
Farscape = Interesting but didn't know where it was going or how to get there
DS9 = Dull cast with the lead unable to hold his own when put up against other star trek figure heads (kirk, picard, janeway etc). Even with Worf added it just couldn't spark, that's why the company gave up and threw all the money at Voyager (enter 7 of 9).
Firefly is the token "could of been great show" but in reality it would of ended up like Dollshouse. The characters lacked any real depth and further shows would of exposed this obvious problem.
One of the reasons now why shows get cancelled so quickly is because there is far more choice now, a couple of bad episodes and you're history
Nonsense. Next you'll be telling us they had the story planned out from the start as well - they didnt. They made a lot of up as they went along. Every detail was NOT planned in advance. Much of the show's major developments came not as a result of some overarching show bible, but rather as a result of the writers saying "Hey, wouldn't it be interesting if we did XYZ?"
You must fallen asleep during all that Starbuck/Anders, Apollo/Dualla nonsense then. Not only was that stuff soap opera, it was terrible soap opera.
This just strikes me as attention seeking.
I'd disagree with that. A few more episodes wouldnt have hurt, but overall I was more than happy with the final season, as were many others (many others werent, I know).
I don't think it was a surprise tho'; there were lots of hints at a darker side to their nature. They were bad guy's just not evil. Looking back on the series (and I still dip in and out of it via DVD but I tend to pick the eps I want to watch) it was still streets ahead of the competion.
No, X-FIles started with a plan but once it became a "water cooler show" they started to wing it and IMO thats why it slowly died and to this day I have never seen the final episode, well most of the last season actually.
The movie was an extended episode with a big budget and special effects, I didn't bother with the 2nd movie which I imagine was more of the same.
The first season of Heroes follwed the comic, it the 2nd series onwards that got it wrong IMO and again theye were just winging it a lot of the time (of course the writers strike played its part here too)
BSG OTH worked because it was planned and thought out, thats why we plan things out. (aprt from a writers strike that kinda messed things up with a lot of weak eps, in the middle)
Something being soap opera doesn't automatically = crap, it s just another "artform". To dismiss something as "just soap opera" is little more than snobbery TBH.
B5 has been done in this thread so I'll not start again.
I really liked the ideas of Farscape but I don't think it had legs, altho I'd happily sit and watch Claudia Black just mooching about doing nothing in particluar (and we're back in the room!) Mind you I do think it got a bit caught up in its "muppetery" which detracted from the actual story.
DS9 was another good idea badly executed ( we know it was a good idea after all B5 was a huge success), yes the cast was poor but they weren't to blame for the general shoddiness of the show and the fact is, they were up against B5, in a manner of speaking and it was never gonna compete.
Firefly... great show if you like westerns, cos thats all it was. Cowboys in space. Some eps were good , some were bad. Serenity was a great movie tho and I still watch that.
Nope, its because shareholders wanna see a return on their cash and they want it now! They're not prepared to wait an entire season until a show gets going to decide if its gonna be a hit or not, mind you I don't think audiences are either.
I've never watched Lost, it didn't really appeal.
DS9 Cast poor? In Star Trek terms it had the best cast.
Fair enough Avery Brooks isn't as talented as Patrick Stewart (not a great percentage are) or the charisma of Shatner (who despite being very watchable, isn't all that talented), but he was far from bad.
Colm Meany and René Auberjonois where probably second and third in the Trek acting stakes to Stewart. The rest of the cast fair enough aren't going to win many Oscars (I wasn't a fan of Nana Visitor or Terry Farrell - not in the acting stakes anyway), but compared to the likes of Frakes, Burton, Kelley, Doohan etc... they're not all that bad. The regular guest star's they had where also pretty damn good. Of all the debates I've seen about DS9, the quality of it's cast is rarely
B5's cast wasn't that great either. For every Andreas Katsulas you had there was Richard Biggs, or Michael O'Hare. It's reputation rests on the novel as a TV show approach (it's also pretty literate but I'm not convinced anyone but the die hards picks up that), but their is still a lot of dross in that show which gets forgotten (and I say that as a big fan of it) It was also incredibly pretentious and a little smug - considering it's often compared to Trek then that is a hell of a statement for me to make. I'm a fan of DS9 as well (best Trek by far for me), and it's only ever forums where I see it criticised so much (apart from the usual non-genre fans).
Smaller shows like X-Files will find it easier to get better casts together (it's easier to get quality if you have 2 leads, than 7+), but for larger casts it's BSG, or possibly Dollhouse (the problems I had with that show wasn't with the cast) which I thought had the best cast (there are probably others that I've never seen).
I wasn't very clear, I wasn't comparing the cast of DS9 with the cast of B5, I was saying that DS9 as a "device/series/idea" was up against B5 which was arguably the daddy of space station based sci-fi. Any show that spans that length of time is gonna have bad eps.. I'm fairly sure I acknowledged that fact
For what its worth, I didn't think the cast of B5 were particularly great either but they at least had great writing / storyline to carry them through.
DS9 had its moments but on the whole it just didn't work for me. I've never felt the need to re-watch it for example and ultimately I can only tell it as I see it. (which is what other people are doing)
And I'm sorry but Avery Brooks? he'd give a tree a good run for its money.
I agree with Odo and O'Brian tho' both very good.
Terry Farrel? no. Micheal Dorn? Nope... apart from Next gen, have you seen him n anything else? he's poor... very poor.
Sorry, just my opinion
No worries, as for Michael Dorn - I though he was very good as Worf (especially in DS9), but would doubt him in any other role
and we're gonna have to agree to disagree over Avery Brookes
Yeah I did wonder if I should have mentioned her
Yes, good as worf.. because he was Worf, in the same way that Nimmoy was Spock.
well, I'll concede that if he (AB) had had more to work with perhaps I'd have seen a better "actor" but yes agree to disagree is the way forward
winning an oscar in one film doesn't automatically infer a great performance in another. Again, I think the biggest issue that the actors, good and bad, had to contend with in DS9 was the show. The stories were hacknied (sp?), it was all pretty unoriginal and lacked the dynamic of the other shows. Ironically, it did improve with the use of the Defiant and the whole shapeshifter/ Kardassian / J'emhadar (sp?) wars and IMO the reason for that was because they were no longer as trapped on an essentially static (in every sense of the word) platform.
You seem to be judging the programme on the first 2 seasons..... Not one of the Star Trek spin offs got going until their 3rd season and had there best days from their 4th seasons onwards.
People bang on about lack of originality in general. I can't think of a shallower argument. Honestly, if TV or movies were judged on originality we may as well all give up watching right now. Originality died a long time ago. All that's left, and has been left for a long time now, is recycling and repackaging.
Interestingly, this harps back on an earlier comment of mine.... how long should we have to wait before deciding a show is cr@p ? The Star Trek series all have LONG seasons...if I've given it a whole season, even 2 whole seasons... at what point am I justified in saying "actually, this isn't for me" ? My reasons for not liking it still stand. Or do I hang on grimly waiting hoping for something to improve?
And I've already said that I kinda liked some of the later stuff, just not enough to dive back into the series but the odd episode, yeah, they're good but not because I thinking the acting is better, its because the story was better and that lessened the impact of bad acting.
You can only judge something based on it's entirety.
You can say you give up on it because you didn't like it at the start, but you can't say you hated it all. Fair enough you admit you dipped in but it wasn't enough for you to stick with it, but you can only judge it by what you have seen.
By way of reversal I hate the film Saving Private Ryan (the majority of it), however I do love the opening beach invasion scene. It would be wrong of me to say the entire film is brilliant if I switched off immediately after that. It would also be wrong of me to say the "whole" film is bad just because I loathed what came after it.
.Discuss!
Have my coat on and am going out.
Merr Christmas
First, You think she was great, I don't *shrug*
Second, I mentioned originality once as part of the whole in terms of why I didn't like the show,not really banging on about it is it.
Third, to think of originality solely in terms of "a brand new Idea" is in itself pretty shallow and one dimensional.
For me, originality encompasses not only new ideas but taking a old idea and giving it a little spin, bringing something new to the party, which again IMO DS9 didn't do.
As I said, its just my opinion, we're not all gonna like the same stuff.
Anywhooo..... regardsless have a good one
Actually, I think all I've said is that I didn't like it because for me it wasn't very good
Yes, DS9 did change and as I understand it, it changed because it was falling away ( I could be wrong about that), I gave it another go... it didn't catch me *shrug*
Anywhooo..... regardsless have a good one
And that's fine. Although youre probably in the minority...which is also fine. Although, as already stated, if you havent seen the whole series your opinion is not a fully informed opinion, as as such carries little weight; it certainly doesnt carry as much weight as it would if you had watched the whole thing.
You'll notice that when referring to originality
1. I didnt quote the paragraph in which you mention the lack of originality, and
2. I used the words, "People" and "in general"
My obesrvation was not to solely or specific to you, but if you want to think it's all about you then so be it.
Yeah, so in your eyes recycling and repackaging equates to originality? Sorry but that's not originality.
"Originality is the aspect of created or invented works by as being new or novel, and thus can be distinguished from reproductions, clones, forgeries, or derivative works. An original work is one not received from others nor one copied based on the work of others."
You too. Look forward to agreeing/disagreeing with you again.
You can't say that Cavil almost eliminating the human race because he resented the limitations of his fleshy human like form isn't even slightly petty?
totally.
Chief finding about his wife was a cheating **** and number six losing her baby just so the importance of herra could be inserted into the story was not retcon?
The prosphesy that Starbuck was the bringer of death went where exactly?
Gata could hear the music but why?
So well planned out that they had to have a tv movie to retrofit the crappness of the last few season onto what had been pretty good first few seasons.
Soap Opera = Artform? you've lost me...
Soap Opera type material, ie relationships etc, can be done without being a soap opera.
Even if we just limited that argument to just the Star Trek franchise, that's not true. TOS and TNG were an examination of issues through the vehicle of exploration - DS9 was far more static in nature, which sacrificed the spirit of adventure but allowed for a different perspective that wasn't possible in the earlier series.
DS9 also went after certain subjects that Trek had traditionally shied away from, ie. religion, politics etc.
Let's be fair, DS9 was the last time Star Trek was great (on TV). It was the last time that they did actually try something different, It wasn't just a rehash of TNG or TOS,
It had the most serialised nature of any of the Trek shows, and whilst it suffers in comparison to the superior B5, it was still a relatively decent effort. However, that shouldn't take away from the fact that the show was also capable of producing some excellent standalone episodes. Anyone who can't acknowledge the brilliance of episodes like Far Beyond the Stars, The Visitor or In the Pale Moonlight, they're just deluding themselves.
Re the cast, again, disagree entirely. DS9 had the most balanced cast of any of the shows. Was AB great? No, not great, certainly doesn't have the gravitas of Stewart, or the charisma of Shatner, but then again he's p1sses all over Mulgrew and Bakula from a great height.
Cirroc Lofton/Jake Sisko - compare and contrast with Wesley Crusher - no contest.
Rene Auberjonois, Armin Shimmerman, Colm Meaney, all fantastic. Louise Fletcher's already been mentioned, but then you also have Wallace Shawn, Marc Alaimo and Jeff Combes.
Again, let's be fair, most of the peripheral characters from DS9 are far better than the regular Voyager and Enterprise casts.
And I would add Andrew Robinson as Garak. Outstanding acting.
In this thread an awful lot of nonsense of a negative nature has been written about DS9. I chose to not to respond. I suppose this counts as some sort of response now.:)