posted
It's from Ron D. Moore of "Battlestar Galactica." A two hour pilot has been shot but it doesn't seem like FOX likes it:
quote: The two-hour pilot for “Virtuality,” which was written by Ronald D. Moore and Michael Taylor of “Battlestar Galactica,” is currently in limbo at Fox. This thought-provoking show (the script of which can be found online) follows a group of young space travelers as they engage in an exploration mission and star in a reality program along the way. It asks challenging questions about identity, media manipulation and the fragility of relationships.
Fox executives screened "Virtuality" in January, then went forward with “Glee,” a soap from “Nip/Tuck’s” Ryan Murphy.
“We’re looking for the best way for the audience to access [‘Virtuality’],” said Cherniss, who added there’s still a chance the space drama could land on Fox’s schedule next year. "There's a lot of discussion about whether the whether the pilot as it currently stands is the way to go on that, or whether there are some adjustments that can be made. ... But it is a project that we remain really intrigued by and excited about."
But "Virtuality," which incorporates reality-TV footage, virtual environments, relationship drama and intriguing mysteries, may just be too ambitious for a broadcast network. As Warner Bros. Television president Peter Roth told TV Week recently, the thinking is that in troubled times, "viewers might gravitate toward the comfort food of heroism and escapism in straightforward, easy-to-follow storylines."
posted
I will never understand how people can pitch to Fox after watching them kill Firefly and Arrested Development. What reasonable expectation does a person have then that their show won't be subjected to the whims of a bunch of high-on-the-smell-of-their-own-farts morons who can wreck your show if they don't like it.
Posts: 86 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Add to that Family Guy, which Fox canceled once, and has done its best to torpedo at every opportunity.
We really shouldn't be surprised by the networks' behavior anymore. Remember that the executive who greenlit "Lost" was fired (for that reason) before it aired. And of course Fox canceled Firefly, which was one of the best television shows ever made.
To paraphrase Adam Carolla, who's radio show was canceled just last week by CBS-
"What basically happens, is you have a bunch of non-creative people who start from the bottom, and work their way up. They learn "the rules." The rules are there to help talentless, uninteresting people survive in entertainment. The problem is that while these people are constantly applying their rules, which are meant for talentless hacks who need them to survive, the creative and interesting people are seen as barriers to rule-following."
Basically Carolla is of the mind, after 18 years of radio in which he garnered high ratings from the public and low ratings from his actual company and bosses, that the types of people who gravitate towards entertainment management have little creative ability, and even poorer taste. Despite endless examples to the contrary, they reason that the public is only willing to accept the familiar, the ordinary, and the recycled. He blames the structure of the industry, which rewards non-creative thinking above innovation, and places the burden of job security on profitability, rather than quality (presumably because management at entertainment giants don't know how to judge quality, and so choose to ignore it).
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mocke: I will never understand how people can pitch to Fox after watching them kill Firefly and Arrested Development. What reasonable expectation does a person have then that their show won't be subjected to the whims of a bunch of high-on-the-smell-of-their-own-farts morons who can wreck your show if they don't like it.
Same question. Why FOX? Why not SciFi? Now there's a channel in need of quality programming.
posted
If SciFi wants to earn respect and viewers, it needs to figure out how to sell itself and part of that has to be making itself attractive to people with potentially successful shows.
However, I'm not sure this show is particularly brilliant.
quote:It asks challenging questions about identity, media manipulation and the fragility of relationships.
The fact that is says this, for example, is no proof that the show actually asks challenging questions about identity, media manipulation and the fragility of relationships. You can just imagine the way it's going to go-- the film crew is going to sleep with the ship crew, there will be lots of rows caused by meddling cameras etc. I think we're all pretty well versed in these three factors of reality shows-- we've seen them in action.
In fact, the fact that the show describes itself as fulfilling these three things is the very thing that makes me back off from it. Really interesting different shows don't usually have to stress their interesting and differentness.
For example, from ACT II:
quote:A CHARACTER: We are scientists, dammit, PhD's, and you're trying to turn us into a pair of bitchy kitchen queens!
Prepare to be whelmed.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I won't be at all disappointed if this show never hits the air. Though I thoroughly enjoy science fiction, this premise doesn't appeal to me even slightly. I detest "reality shows," so this just seems like bad to the power of two.
Posts: 324 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: As Warner Bros. Television president Peter Roth told TV Week recently, the thinking is that in troubled times, "viewers might gravitate toward the comfort food of heroism and escapism in straightforward, easy-to-follow storylines."
Heck yes we will. I'm burnt out on vile protagonists with no redeeming qualities who glory in being jerks, much less being expected to root for them just because they show the occasional wistful streak. And what's wrong with a story that's done-in-one and makes sense? Nothing. Enough with murky, endlessly unfolding plots that never pay off.
Bring on the flawed but endearing heroes and stories that are told simply but powerfully! Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with Scifi is that their regular programming is decent/good (BSG, SG, Eureka, etc.), but their original movies are horrible. About the only redeeming value is laughing at how BAD it is.
And not all execs are like that, Orincoro. In my memory NBC, CBS, and ABC like to give chances. Certainly their track record isn't as bad as Faux.
And Puffy, so no House or Dexter? What of Burn Notice? Aside from the overarching plot that holds the series together, each episode is pretty self contained. And I find the main character rather likeable. And you might be interested in a House spin-off about the detective from two seasons ago. It got the Greenlight, but I don't know when it will air. Detective Tritter, though, is said to be as intellectual as House, but with the opposite personality.
Posts: 86 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read the script, and I have to say... I'm totally unimpressed. I'm surprised they even made the pilot. We don't need more sci-fi, we just need good sci-fi. I didn't like it.
I know it was a long time ago, but the counter-argument to all the Fox bashing is The X-Files.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fox also mistreated, then killed Futurama. I had to watch it all in reruns because when it was on the first time, I didn't know when to find it.
Of course, now that Futurama has had great success in selling a ton of DVDs (Into the Wild Green Yonder was released last week, and it's really good. Probably the best of the 4) they're talking about picking it up again.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
