posted
Would you rather them not try at all? I'll take the dozen Firefly episodes they gave us, over a world where they didn't even want to try.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: Louie (if we're not counting british television)
Yes, exactly. Game of Thrones is a very well done show, but Louie is the TV show that's really pushing the medium forward right now. It's the show with all the ideas.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Fox's pattern these days is "give it two seasons then cancel it" (Sarah Connor Chronicles, Dollhouse).
Elementary's most recent episode definitely pushed it back up to "excellent" for me instead of just "really good."
Posts: 428 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Would you rather them not try at all? I'll take the dozen Firefly episodes they gave us, over a world where they didn't even want to try.
The problem was them going through Fox. They can pitch their pilot to other studios, especially J J Aabrams. HBO, AMC, and Showtime would be far better options than Fox. Hopefully it sticks around, but we'll see.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Would you rather them not try at all?
Yeah, actually kind of yes. If the idea behind a show is good, I don't want it to be done by a network that will painfully mismanage it to death right out of the gate, toss it in graveyard timeslots, and scare other possible network investors away from the themes and the genres.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Would you rather them not try at all?
Yeah, actually kind of yes. If the idea behind a show is good, I don't want it to be done by a network that will painfully mismanage it to death right out of the gate, toss it in graveyard timeslots, and scare other possible network investors away from the themes and the genres.
quote:Originally posted by millernumber1: I think Fox's pattern these days is "give it two seasons then cancel it" (Sarah Connor Chronicles, Dollhouse).
Those shows deserved it, though.
Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Would you rather them not try at all?
Yeah, actually kind of yes. If the idea behind a show is good, I don't want it to be done by a network that will painfully mismanage it to death right out of the gate, toss it in graveyard timeslots, and scare other possible network investors away from the themes and the genres.
QFT.
Yeah, I tend to agree. Firefly was set up for failure from the beginning. And executives look at stuff like that and say "well I guess this genre just doesn't have an audience!" so nothing else gets greenlit except in fits and starts. Sci-fi is really rather underserved on TV right now, especially shows like Firefly. Are there even any "ships in space" shows currently on television? No. And there hasn't been since 2011 when Stargate Atlantis was canceled. And there have been precious few over the last decade.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Would you rather them not try at all?
Yeah, actually kind of yes. If the idea behind a show is good, I don't want it to be done by a network that will painfully mismanage it to death right out of the gate, toss it in graveyard timeslots, and scare other possible network investors away from the themes and the genres.
QFT.
Yeah, I tend to agree. Firefly was set up for failure from the beginning. And executives look at stuff like that and say "well I guess this genre just doesn't have an audience!" so nothing else gets greenlit except in fits and starts. Sci-fi is really rather underserved on TV right now, especially shows like Firefly. Are there even any "ships in space" shows currently on television? No. And there hasn't been since 2011 when Stargate Atlantis was canceled. And there have been precious few over the last decade.
Stargate Universe is waving its tiny, short-lived hand over in the corner. Man, talk about a show that started with an incredible premise and then petered out surprisingly quickly. Posts: 124 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Would you rather them not try at all?
Yeah, actually kind of yes. If the idea behind a show is good, I don't want it to be done by a network that will painfully mismanage it to death right out of the gate, toss it in graveyard timeslots, and scare other possible network investors away from the themes and the genres.
QFT.
Yeah, I tend to agree. Firefly was set up for failure from the beginning. And executives look at stuff like that and say "well I guess this genre just doesn't have an audience!" so nothing else gets greenlit except in fits and starts. Sci-fi is really rather underserved on TV right now, especially shows like Firefly. Are there even any "ships in space" shows currently on television? No. And there hasn't been since 2011 when Stargate Atlantis was canceled. And there have been precious few over the last decade.
Stargate Universe is waving its tiny, short-lived hand over in the corner. Man, talk about a show that started with an incredible premise and then petered out surprisingly quickly.
Probably because it never went anywhere interesting. They really didn't do a good job with that show. They kept trying to make it like Battlestar Galactica, but kept failing over and over again. It's too bad, because it had some really interesting characters and actors, and the premise was very cool. Seems kinda hard to screw that up, but there you go.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
umberhulk, I maintain that Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles was the best science fiction series ever on TV--with the only close second being The Dead Zone, which had some truly great episodes.
As for Firefly, the show was great, it was just the title that defeated it. First time I saw the listing in the TV Guide, I thought "What kind of show is Firefly? Sounds stupid. Maybe not as bad as Buffy the Vampire Killer, which was so absurd I never watched a single episode until about five years after the final season. (Finally I watched it on DVDs from the public library.) Buffy actually turned out to be surprisingly well-acted (Alyson Hannigan was wonderful as Willow, and David Boreanaz was destined for greatness in Bones), and had fairly entertaining stories. It went on for eight seasons. But I wonder if these shows produced by Joss Whedon would have done much better in the ratings if he had used more descriptive and fetching titles. He seems to be his own worst enemy, when it comes to titling his works.
Now, I can almost count myself as a "brown-coat." Especially after the movie, Serenity, which again was not a very fetching title for an action movie. But after actually seeing the episodes, and the movie, I found them to be very well done stories with interesting characters. Honestly, the whole problem is, Joss Whedon needs to let someone else devise his titles for him.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As for what current TV series is the best, I would probably favor Haven, based very loosely (as a jumping-off point) on Stephen King's story, Who Killed the Oklahoma Kid? I just love listening to Emily Rose's voice. She still has just a hint of that rich southern belle accent.
Another current TV series I either watch or record so I don't miss it, is Bones. I also love Kathy Reich's novels, onwhich the show is based.
Almost Human looks promising, but I feel the jury is still out. It depends on what the writers do with the story line in the next few episodes. If it just doesn't degenerate into another Robocop, maybe it will be OK.
Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. is too low-budget for its ambitious story line. I mean, if they can't afford to have Thor ever show up, or any of the other people with real super powers, then all they've got is a mediocre action adventure series.
Sleepy Hollow has turned out to be a very much more entertaining show than I expected--they greatly diverged from the story line of the book, which made it better. Of course, I don't believe a word of their mystical theology. The four horsemen of Revelation are symbolic, not literal. But still the show is fun. Engaging stories, well-acted.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Godric, the first thing they teach you in creative writing class is to come up with opening paragraphs that grip the readers' attention. The SECOND thing they teach is to come up with a title that will hook readers. One of the cardinal sins of titling stories is being misleading, either suggesting promises that aren't kept, or else not giving the reader some idea of what the story is about.
For example, I think a better title for Buffy the Vampire Killer would have been to name it simply "Vampire Killer." Let people tune in to see that the vampire killer is a little blonde valley girl named Buffy. Firefly would have had better success if it had been named something like, "Space Roustabouts," or "Star Rebels." Let viewers tune in to discover they fly a ship that is called a "Firefly class." Instead of the movie being titled Serenity, they should have called it something the opposite of serenity, like "Roustabout Agitators in Space," or "Tension, Apprehension, and Dissention Have Begun." (With apologies to Alfred Bester.)
[ November 26, 2013, 08:52 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think a better title for Buffy the Vampire Killer would have been to name it simply...
Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Done. Seriously, in that particular case, the name of the show also told you the hook: that it's not about slaying vampires, but that it's specifically about a shallow Valley girl called to slay vampires. That is in fact why anyone would want watch the show, and should never be kept from the audience; it's the elevator pitch in a nutshell.
Firefly is indeed a terrible name, though, since it communicates nothing about the show to someone who isn't already familiar with it, and indeed dwells on an irrelevant detail; it doesn't matter what the kind of ship is called. Space Roustabouts might be a tad on the nose, but it's more communicative. Star Cowboys?Stardust?Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that Buffy the Vampire Slayer was an accurate title. In this case, that was something that should have been avoided. It was too accurate. Gave too much detail. The idea of a valley girl who slays vampires is too silly for words. That's why I never watched it until five years after the final season. The real purpose of a title is to snag interest. "Vampire Killer" would not have repulsed as many people. At least, not me. Though in truth I find anything to do with vampires somewhat repulsive.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Would you rather them not try at all?
Yeah, actually kind of yes. If the idea behind a show is good, I don't want it to be done by a network that will painfully mismanage it to death right out of the gate, toss it in graveyard timeslots, and scare other possible network investors away from the themes and the genres.
QFT.
Yeah, I tend to agree. Firefly was set up for failure from the beginning. And executives look at stuff like that and say "well I guess this genre just doesn't have an audience!" so nothing else gets greenlit except in fits and starts. Sci-fi is really rather underserved on TV right now, especially shows like Firefly. Are there even any "ships in space" shows currently on television? No. And there hasn't been since 2011 when Stargate Atlantis was canceled. And there have been precious few over the last decade.
Stargate Universe is waving its tiny, short-lived hand over in the corner. Man, talk about a show that started with an incredible premise and then petered out surprisingly quickly.
Probably because it never went anywhere interesting. They really didn't do a good job with that show. They kept trying to make it like Battlestar Galactica, but kept failing over and over again. It's too bad, because it had some really interesting characters and actors, and the premise was very cool. Seems kinda hard to screw that up, but there you go.
Yeah I really agree with this. The original Stargates were never anything special plot-wise. Very run of the mill planet-of-the-week sort of stuff. But people loved them because they had great characters with amazing chemistry. I loved Daniel and Jack in SG1, and it was hilarious.
But with SGU they tried to remake BSG sort of mixed with Chuck (as far as tone goes). But they failed to reaching anything near that level of storytelling or characterization, AND they robbed the show of what made people love the originals: fun/funny great characters. Eli was funny, but he was basically the only one. The others were interesting, perhaps, but incredibly inconsistent. That show was indeed a good premise, but they had no idea what to do with it.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Agents of sheild is a sci fi ship show...just not in space.
If by "ship" you mean "shipper" then I might agree, but they spend their time on a converted cargo plane. Even if you were to make the argument that it's basically a spaceship only in the sky, I wouldn't quite buy it, it's not the same. I tend to think of AGENTS as more fantasy than sci-fi, in the same sense that Thor, to me, is fantasy, not sci-fi.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think a better title for Buffy the Vampire Killer would have been to name it simply...
Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Done. Seriously, in that particular case, the name of the show also told you the hook: that it's not about slaying vampires, but that it's specifically about a shallow Valley girl called to slay vampires. That is in fact why anyone would want watch the show, and should never be kept from the audience; it's the elevator pitch in a nutshell.
Firefly is indeed a terrible name, though, since it communicates nothing about the show to someone who isn't already familiar with it, and indeed dwells on an irrelevant detail; it doesn't matter what the kind of ship is called. Space Roustabouts might be a tad on the nose, but it's more communicative. Star Cowboys?Stardust?
What about Han Before Star Wars? Since it's basically Han Solo before he met Leia, but with a bigger crew.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: lolmost human is lookin' good so far
It's expensive and it's on Fox, so it will get cancelled.
finally an exciting new show for nerds on the Fox™ lineup, this will go Great™
In the past 4 or 5 years Fox has been doing a better job. Fringe had been struggling for years but Fox still renewed it for a final season.
Dollhouse ended after two seasons but they were able to tie everything up. I would argue that it was the right time, there was only so many places that show could have gone.
Terminator was a DECENT show until the second half of the second season. The end of the second season made me angry it was cancelled, since the twists at the end make me realize just how much potential the show had. Unfortunately the writers dragged too much in the first season.
Fringe sort of makes up for Firefly for me. I wish Firefly had more of a chance, however at least most of the actors have done well for themselves. Nathan Fillion has Castle, Adam Baldwin went on to Chuck, (Another underrated yet awesome show) Morena Baccarin got Homeland, and Summer Glau went on to Terminator, Dollhouse, Arrow, and every other nerdy show ever made. I do wish that we saw more Jewel Staite, but I guess she had Stargate Atlantis and a stint on The Killing.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Space Wrangler! How the Black was Won The Spaceship Bandit Borderworlds Last of the Browncoats
Posts: 1087 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Godric, the first thing they teach you in creative writing class is to come up with opening paragraphs that grip the readers' attention. The SECOND thing they teach is to come up with a title that will hook readers. One of the cardinal sins of titling stories is being misleading, either suggesting promises that aren't kept, or else not giving the reader some idea of what the story is about.
For example, I think a better title for Buffy the Vampire Killer would have been to name it simply "Vampire Killer." Let people tune in to see that the vampire killer is a little blonde valley girl named Buffy. Firefly would have had better success if it had been named something like, "Space Roustabouts," or "Star Rebels." Let viewers tune in to discover they fly a ship that is called a "Firefly class." Instead of the movie being titled Serenity, they should have called it something the opposite of serenity, like "Roustabout Agitators in Space," or "Tension, Apprehension, and Dissention Have Begun." (With apologies to Alfred Bester.)
Space Roustabouts? Star Rebels? You're joking right?
Was Enterprise a lesser Trek because of it's name or were there other issues?
Were Babylon 5 or Deep Space Nine better because of their names or other factors?
The name of a show is important, but if you're advocating for the most generic name possible, I don't really think you have a solid point.
Posts: 382 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
It's an anime, and it is basically Firefly. Or, well, close enough. Point is, it has a quirky name and yet it was still successful.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
COPS. You don't go 26 seasons without being the best show on TV. Surprised nobody else has mentiones it yet.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Success and quality are two different things. An average show that is cheap to produce and garners decent ratings can be a huge success but that doesn't mean it's good while the greatest show ever made can flop initially.
In any art form, works that go on to be considered the best were ignored when they were new.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
It's an anime, and it is basically Firefly. Or, well, close enough. Point is, it has a quirky name and yet it was still successful.
I'm a fan of it and the two titles aren't nearly the same , and unlike Star Cowboys, it connotates the content quite accurately.
Agree with nothing else, Star Cowboys sounds too much like the movie Space Cowboys.
Not sure I understand. Cowboy Bebop didn't tell you anything about the show before you watched it. You only understood the name once it was given in context. It's the name of the ship plus their occupation, but without seeing the show itself, you'd never know that. The same is true of Firefly. You wouldn't understand the name until you watched the show.
That's the point here. The names do not explain anything about the show until you watch them, which is supposedly the problem. Personally, I don't think that's the issue. I think the issue is the fact that Fox marketed Firefly terribly. They moved its time slot around multiple times, aired episodes out of order and basically whenever they felt like it, and they gave up on it early.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cowboy Bebop explains a little bit more. And I was never even trying to confront the idea that show needs to explain itself. All I'm saying is that Star Cowboys sounds bad; if I was recommending the show to someone I would not be able to say it with a straight face, and if you could then you're a terrible person. Cowboy Bebop doesn't sound nearly as corny. And while Firefly has it share of humor in, Star Cowboys would make it sounds like some cheery, low stakes bullshit.
Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The best show I can currently find on television is Hiatus, though of course only as repeats for now. But I never seem to catch them when scheduled.
I just wish there had been more of a chance to get to know the characters. There was so much backstory to figure out.
posted
I just watched the first season of Homeland.
It's been awhile since I've seen a solid, tight, consistent first season this engaging. The acting is out of this world.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CT: The best show I can currently find on television is Hiatus, though of course only as repeats for now. But I never seem to catch them when scheduled.
I just wish there had been more of a chance to get to know the characters. There was so much backstory to figure out.
I keep looking for it in the "on demand" stuff but it is only "free with subscription". Which pretty much means "free if you pay for it" which is stupid. Maybe Netflix...
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've read that the show goes bizarrely off the rails. I really loved the dynamic of the first season, but I'm afraid they might have broken it too much to put something else just as good in its place.
We'll see though, I'm only one episode in. But it doesn't have the same dynamism it did in the first season.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't really explain without spoilers, and trust me, you probably don't want to read any.
I actually like the beginning of the second season okay. The second episode was actually pretty cool. But by the middle, certain subplots were starting to outstay their welcome. Some things were overdone. Somethings were contrived. And the ending is weird.
Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Game of Thrones The Newsroom Homeland (just started watching season 3) Person of Interest The Americans The Blacklist Arrow and Archer, but I have to watch them without the gf. She says they are stupid, then goes to OnDemand Pretty Little Liars!
I love that Shanna gave an honorable mention to Adventure Time. I think that show is great.
I might be the only one who hasn't watched Breaking Bad yet, but I promise I will watch it. Same goes for Boardwalk Empire.
Also, I haven't been on this forum for a very long time, but I randomly thought about it just now and I'm happy to be reading these threads and seeing some familiar names.
EDIT: Umberhulk, I'm only 6 episodes into Homeland S3, but I think it is fantastic. I told my gf last night that I thought it was "Game of Thrones good." Anything spy/espionage will get me though.
Posts: 813 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: If Firefly was actually called "Star Cowboys" I never would have watched it.
Cowboy Bebop.
I just tried to "Like" your Cowboy Bebop post and I was confused for longer than I'd like to admit on why I couldn't.
Posts: 813 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
