From: your.name@isp.com
"AC" wrote in message
news:e0GOo.43236$M94.38525@newsfe22.ams2...
> Your Name wrote:
> > "AC" wrote in message
> > news:V1zOo.41883$uo7.26570@newsfe04.ams2...
> >> Your Name wrote:
> >>> "AC" wrote in message
> >>> news:xRmOo.33239$jO1.15036@newsfe07.ams2...
> >>>>
> >>>> I would guess, that had Firefly been British, it would have survived.
> > It
> >>>> would have had less episodes and been lower budget, but it would have
> >>>> had time to establish. I would add that I would not say that's an
> >>>> automatic thing for any failed "good" US show. I think Firefly was
> >>>> pretty unique. It was a show like Babylon 5, in that it is a scifi
set
> >>>> show that can draw non scifi fans.
> >>>
> >>> I've never seen Firefly, but Babblealong 5 was abysmally boring. I
don't
> >>> many, if any, "no scifi fans" were interested in watching it ... most
> > scifi
> >>> fans I know weren't even interested in watching it (in fact a couple
of
> >>> people I know watched it solely to see the Amiga-driven special
effects
> >>> because they orked or were interested in that area).
> >>
> >> I'm not sure what you like then. You slate reset shows like ST, don't
> >> like the arc shows like B5 and FF. Not sure what's left.
> >
> > Here we go with the not being able to read. :-(
> >
> > I said I had never seen Firefly, not even a single second of it ... I
have
> > also not really read anything about it, so I can't say whether I like it
or
> > not.
> >
> > I also never said anything about "arc shows". Babblealong 5 was simply
> > b-o-r-i-n-g. The only real problem with "arc shows" is that they lose
> > viewers since the casual watcher can't be bothered watching EVERY single
> > episode just to keep up. That's why most good shows tend to be episodic
so
> > casual viewers can tune in whenever they want, and often have an
on-going
> > background story for the real fans.
> >
> > The real Star Trek shows were fine (with the exception of some lazily
> > written episodes and the religious mumbo-jumbo in Deep Space Nine).
> > Enterprise and the silly "reboot" movie are simply garbage that don't
fit in
> > the "Star Trek" franchise in anything but name.
> >
> > If you're counting shows that are now longer running, then there's
plenty of
> > other sci-fi shows left.
> >
> >
>
> I see you confuse "boring" with "cant be bothered". Fair enough. Im
> prepared to comit for quality. Compared to any ST, B5 was quality. It
> was only boring, if as you say, you couldn't be bothered. It was more
> exciting than anything ST ever did.
The few episodes I saw were definitely b-o-r-i-n-g ... lots of political /
quasi-religious garbage and hopeless silent space battles with only ballet
music for accompaniment. :-(
> No idea what you mean by "real star trek". I don't see the difference
> between an average eps of TOS and Enterprise. Don't see what was lazy
> about DS9 apart from nicking the general premise of the show.
The laziness in both Deep Space Nine and Voyager came from writers who
couldn't be bothered coming up with stories that actually fit into the Star
Trek universe, so instead they had the entire command staff playing silly
games in the Holodeck ... which was moronically stupid in Deep Space Nine
when the station is sitting on THE most strategic point during a war!
Enterprise simply ignored everything that was already established and tried
to make things up as it went along. Just like the talentless hacks writing
Smallville, they simply chucked everything from Star Trek into the show,
screwing up the time line.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
