b69303a7
From: cpd@cat.pan.net
"Your Name" wrote in message
news:your.name-2212101614010001@203-109-174-244.dial.dyn.ihug.co.nz...
> 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). :-(
Babylon 5 did not use ANY ballet music. Please post a link to even one
single clip that shows a battle being accompanied by a ballet piece, or by
any classical music for that matter.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
