b69303a7
From: your.name@isp.com
In article , AC wrote:
> Your Name wrote:
> > "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, the political and religious stuff was intrinsic to the whole
> motivation of the characters. With out motivation, then everything else
> is pointless. It gives the action stuff meaning. Something ST never ever
> had.
>
> The space battles were brilliant and better than anything at the time.
> They still hold up well to day.
They're still boring rubbish today ... as is the confused mess known as
"2001 A Space Oddessy" (although not only because they both share silly
silent space scenes accompanied by dreadful ballet music). :-(
> >> No idea what you mean by "real star trek". I don't see the difference
> >> between an average eps of TOS and Enterprise. Don't see what was lazy
> >> about DS9 apart from nicking the general premise of the show.
> >
> > The laziness in both Deep Space Nine and Voyager came from writers who
> > couldn't be bothered coming up with stories that actually fit into the Star
> > Trek universe, so instead they had the entire command staff playing silly
> > games in the Holodeck ... which was moronically stupid in Deep Space Nine
> > when the station is sitting on THE most strategic point during a war!
>
> Im sorry, but none of that fits. They hardly used the holodeck and what
> is wrong with R&R during a war? Do you begrudge soldiers in Iraq etc
> some R&R? If they had a holodeck, you can bet your life they would use
> it. Are soldiers and their commanders moronically stupid?
R&R, yes, of course that's fine ... but not the ENTIRE command staff at
THE SAME TIME while sitting on THE most strategic point of the whole war.
That's simply idiotic and would never, ever happen.
It wasn't just the holod(r)ek episodes either. Quite often the entire
command staff went off "playing" in the spaceships.
> And what were these stories that didn't fit the universe? In a whole
> universe, anything can happen.
The non-fitting shows were in Enterprise. Voyager and Deep Space Nine (and
a little in The Next Generation) instead used the holod(r)ek and "big red
reset button" approach.
> > Enterprise simply ignored everything that was already established and tried
> > to make things up as it went along.
>
> No, it just made a few mistakes that pissed off fanatical pedants. FOr
> those of us who just like the show for the ride, and know that ST has
> never been properly consistent, much like Dr Who, it was fine. Not
> great, but good enough.
The proper Star Trek shows tried and succeeded in staying (mostly)
consistent. Enterprise cam along and simply pee'd all over the established
facts whenever they felt like it. Abrams new moive is even worse under the
silly moniker of being a "reboot".
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
