Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

The Final Dakar · Oct 11, 2011, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by Eug

Of course I could, but I don't. That was my entire point.

"I'm not intellectually dishonest, I'm intellectually lazy." Nice. Always make discussions worthwhile.

Originally Posted by Eug

If you look up a few posts, I was responding to Waragainstsleep who was saying SciFi must be scientifically accurate. My point was to suggest was that Star Trek was not always scientifically accurate either, but was still enjoyable despite that.

I think what he and olePigeon were getting at is if you're not trying, it's not good sci-fi. I agree.

Eug · Oct 11, 2011, 09:55 AM

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar

I think what he and olePigeon were getting at is if you're not trying, it's not good sci-fi. I agree.

Did you like the Star Trek reboot?

Cuz I don't think the science in that made any sense whatsoever. However, overall, while it wasn't a fave of mine, I still enjoyed it.

Athens · Oct 11, 2011, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by Eug

Uh, no. It really depended upon which series and who the writers were. 1 to the 10th power, etc.

And before you say TNG had good science, just how would you explain the sudden morphologic change of the Klingons?

Experiment with human augment DNA resulted in that. Why the ridges disappeared for a few generations during kirks years.

The Final Dakar · Oct 11, 2011, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by Eug

Did you like the Star Trek reboot?

Cuz I don't think the science in that made any sense whatsoever. However, overall, while it wasn't a fave of mine, I still enjoyed it.

I thought it was a decent action movie, but it sure wasn't Star Trek.

Eug · Oct 11, 2011, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar

I thought it was a decent action movie, but it sure wasn't Star Trek.

Well, Voyager was Star Trek, despite the fact you didn't like Voyager.

Originally Posted by Athens

Experiment with human augment DNA resulted in that. Why the ridges disappeared for a few generations during kirks years.

We already discussed this. This was written after the fact, a decade after the shows actually aired.

The Final Dakar · Oct 11, 2011, 10:09 AM

Originally Posted by Eug

Well, Voyager was Star Trek, despite the fact you didn't like Voyager.

Yeah, it was Star Trek. A hackneyed, cliché beating version with a horrible plot, but Star Trek none-the-less. There certainly were some fantastic episodes. You have a point?

Eug · Oct 11, 2011, 10:10 AM

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar

Yeah, it was Star Trek. A hackneyed, cliché beating version with a horrible plot, but Star Trek none-the-less. There certainly were some fantastic episodes. You have a point?

Yeah, that you're trying to pigeonhole SciFi, and it ain't working.

Star Trek the reboot had bad science, and you liked it. Star Trek: Voyager had arguably better science, and you generally hated it.

The Final Dakar · Oct 11, 2011, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by Eug

Yeah, that you're trying to pigeonhole SciFi, and it ain't working.

Sci-fi by definition is a pigeonhole.

Originally Posted by Eug

Star Trek the reboot had bad science, and you liked it.

I said I was ok with it as an action movie. I didn't say I liked it.

Originally Posted by Eug

Star Trek: Voyager had arguably better science, and you generally hated it.

I suppose Voyager had better science, though arguably that's because it tried, which the reboot obviously didn't. Voyager's problem, however, was it's over-reliance on technobabble. IWhatever elements of good sci-fi it may have contained were completely neutered by its bad-sci-fi plots. The writing on that show was horrific.

Eug · Oct 11, 2011, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar

I suppose Voyager had better science, though arguably that's because it tried, which the reboot obviously didn't. Voyager's problem, however, was it's over-reliance on technobabble. IWhatever elements of good sci-fi it may have contained were completely neutered by its bad-sci-fi plots. The writing on that show was horrific.

All of the Star Trek series, except for maybe the first, relied way too much on technobabble IMO. Jordi La Forge is the all-time king of technobabble.

I still prefer the first because it had the strongest characters. In TNG, they were mostly neutered, with too many of them, with an annoying boy wonder.

However, the first one also had some of the worst science of all the Star Trek series.

Good SciFi should have good writing and good stories. Good science is a secondary concern IMO. It's still important, but not as important as some want it to be, for good entertainment.

The Final Dakar · Oct 11, 2011, 10:55 AM

Originally Posted by Eug

All of the Star Trek series, except for maybe the first, relied way too much on technobabble IMO. Jordi La Forge is the all-time king of technobabble.

I agree. I believe it got worse with each series through Voyager.

Originally Posted by Eug

I still prefer the first because it had the strongest characters. In TNG, they were mostly neutered, with too many of them, with an annoying boy wonder.

The biggest takeaway from TNG I get as an adult is what an awful, useless character Troi is 99% of the time.

Originally Posted by Eug

However, the first one also had some of the worst science of all the Star Trek series.

I still feel like Voyager was worse. Maybe TOS wasn't as accurate, but they were working with ...less informed... audiences, and more importantly, were wise enough to use it more sparingly.

Originally Posted by Eug

Good SciFi should have good writing and good stories. Good science is a secondary concern IMO. It's still important, but not as important as some want it to be, for good entertainment.

I'm ok with this.

I think the main aim for those that like the science aspect is that the writers create and work within the constraints of a consistent semi-believable universe. That's why Voyager fails so hard.

Eug · Oct 11, 2011, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar

The biggest takeaway from TNG I get as an adult is what an awful, useless character Troi is 99% of the time.

"Captain, I think he's hiding something." Uhh... Thx, Troi.

Shaddim · Oct 11, 2011, 11:10 AM

Voyager wasn't so bad, the Doc made it almost tolerable.

The Final Dakar · Oct 11, 2011, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by Shaddim

Voyager wasn't so bad, the Doc made it almost tolerable.

I agree he was the shining star of that show. Probably why I count "Living Witness" as one of the best episodes.

SpaceMonkey · Oct 11, 2011, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by Eug

I still prefer the first because it had the strongest characters. In TNG, they were mostly neutered, with too many of them, with an annoying boy wonder.

But-but-but...beard + trombone = personality!

Waragainstsleep · Oct 11, 2011, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by Eug

If you look up a few posts, I was responding to Waragainstsleep who was saying SciFi must be scientifically accurate. My point was to suggest was that Star Trek was not always scientifically accurate either, but was still enjoyable despite that.

I never said that SF must be scientifically accurate, just that I'd like it to try a bit harder than it has been lately. SF should be about trying to predict futures that could actually unfold at least some of the time anyway. Look at the long history of SF predicting reality like Arthur C Clarke basically inventing the artificial satellite.

I just prefer my SF to be believable otherwise its Science Fantasy. Look at films like Alien. You could debate the characteristics of the alien itself but the rest of the tech was wholly believable. At least sometimes, the fiction part should be filling the gaps in real science, even if you only paper over them.

From a making of show about TNG: A NASA consultant actually called the TNG team and asked "How do your Heisenberg Compensators work?" The classic reply: "Very nicely, thank you."

Waragainstsleep · Oct 11, 2011, 11:39 AM

Those bashing Voyager should not forget Seven of Nine either. Eye candy and very entertaining if a bit too much like Data, story-wise.

Eug · Oct 11, 2011, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep

I never said that SF must be scientifically accurate, just that I'd like it to try a bit harder than it has been lately. SF should be about trying to predict futures that could actually unfold at least some of the time anyway. Look at the long history of SF predicting reality like Arthur C Clarke basically inventing the artificial satellite.

I just prefer my SF to be believable otherwise its Science Fantasy. Look at films like Alien. You could debate the characteristics of the alien itself but the rest of the tech was wholly believable. At least sometimes, the fiction part should be filling the gaps in real science, even if you only paper over them.

From a making of show about TNG: A NASA consultant actually called the TNG team and asked "How do your Heisenberg Compensators work?" The classic reply: "Very nicely, thank you."

SciFi vs SciFantasy: That's really just an arbitrary distinction by uber SciFi geeks IMO.

The Final Dakar · Oct 11, 2011, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by Eug

SciFi vs SciFantasy: That's really just an arbitrary distinction by uber SciFi geeks IMO.

That's the difference between Star Trek vs. Star Wars, IMO.

Person Man · Oct 11, 2011, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar

Vehemently disagree. The show plot was Lost in Space and they had Janeway flagrantly violating the Prime Directive at the end of the pilot in order to achieve it. That's the writing equivalent of pulling down your pants and shitting on my face.

Okay then, the concept of the show had promise in the beginning. I agree with much of your stance on Voyager, though. And yes, there were absolutely wonderful episodes here and there and I wish that the rest of the shows were up to that caliber.

Instead we got shows like "Threshold."

The Final Dakar · Oct 11, 2011, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by Person Man

Okay then, the concept of the show had promise in the beginning. I agree with much of your stance on Voyager, though. And yes, there were absolutely wonderful episodes here and there and I wish that the rest of the shows were up to that caliber.

Instead we got shows like "Threshold."

Thanks to the recent release on Netflix, I was informed of the legacy of Threshold. It's mesmerizing in it's horrificness. It practically requires a new fake word that is the antonym of scrumtrilescent.

Athens · Oct 11, 2011, 04:50 PM

The show and concept has promise, just terrible actors and writers.

design219 · Oct 11, 2011, 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by Athens

The show and concept has promise, just terrible actors and writers.

Uhmm, now which show are we talking about?

This latest episode of Terra Nova really sucked. It's had better improve.

Person Man · Oct 11, 2011, 10:07 PM

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar

Thanks to the recent release on Netflix, I was informed of the legacy of Threshold. It's mesmerizing in it's horrificness. It practically requires a new fake word that is the antonym of scrumtrilescent.

I will admit that I laughed at Tuvok's response when Chakotay asked "Which one is the captain?": "The female, obviously."

Athens · Oct 11, 2011, 10:12 PM

Originally Posted by design219

Uhmm, now which show are we talking about?

This latest episode of Terra Nova really sucked. It's had better improve.

Can't improve the cast is all wrong. Wrong actors. And the writers suck so ya its doomed.

reader50 · Oct 11, 2011, 10:43 PM

I've been holding off watching Terra Nova. From the sound if it, this was a wise time-saving move.

Eug · Oct 12, 2011, 12:52 AM

Saw their version of The Birds. Yeah that sucked too. I'm glad that whiney curly-haired woman wasn't there though.

And it still seemed like Spring Break at Jurassic Park. Not an Avatar cross. The only Avatar similarity I see is the military guy. Someone said they're aiming at the under 25 crowd. I'd say more like the teenage crowd, but I'm not convinced they'll catch them either. Not enough teen angst for that. Just annoying fake teens.

I'll give this week's episode a chance, but so far it's 2 strikes. (Actually 3, but I'll count the 2-episode pilot as one.)

BTW, their roughin-it homes are way nicer than most people's homes in most of the world in 2011. And they still all have perfect makeup, with Cancun-appropriate designer outfits.

design219 · Oct 12, 2011, 07:58 AM

Originally Posted by Eug

omeone said they're aiming at the under 25 crowd. I'd say more like the teenage crowd, but I'm not convinced they'll catch them either. Not enough teen angst for that. Just annoying fake teens.

Yes, my 10 year old son loves it, but my 13 year old daughter (who is a voracious novel reader) talks about how weak the writing is, and she's also mentioned the unrealistic cleanliness of the whole place. She's losing interest fast.

Doc HM · Oct 12, 2011, 03:59 PM

Got half way through ep3. Lost all interest in the generic characters, shallow writing and by the numbers plotting. $70million does not a great show make.

Lateralus · Oct 12, 2011, 04:23 PM

If this show were good, we'd all be waiting for Fox to drop the axe on it. But the fact that it's shallow means it'll probably draw enough of an audience to go on for a while.

Waragainstsleep · Oct 12, 2011, 05:32 PM

Is the BBC showing The Fades in the US yet? Its pretty good so far.

Athens · Oct 12, 2011, 05:34 PM

Too Pretty, to much makeup.

Eug · 09:05 AM

Finished episode 4. Not impressed, but somehow it didn't quite annoy me as much as some of the others as it focused a bit less on the kids this time.

The thing that gets me is that the show in general has a very similar tone to Jurassic Park. There is violence, esp. with the dinos, but the acting is very Disney-esque in style, which seemed to be common in movies in the 80s (and I guess 90s). (Think of the acting by the kids in Jurassic Park.) However, in 2011, it doesn't work for me.

That coupled with the weak writing has become a deal killer. I will no longer follow this show, but if it happens to be on TV while folding laundry or whatever I'd leave it on instead of turning to a stupid "reality" show or something..

BTW, design219 may have a point: While our friends don't like it either, their young kids seem to love it. These are kids who are old enough to tolerate the dino violence and kissing, but who haven't hit the teens yet. I wonder if that will be enough to keep the show going. Quite frankly, I hope not.

EDIT:

To expand on the style thing. It's not just the acting, but the overall anti-septic and theme park feel of everything. That was OK in Jurassic Park, because it WAS an anti-septic theme park. With Terra Nova, it's supposed to be pioneering a new and dangerous world, but it feels just too much like going to Terra Nova Land with costumed characters cooking your lunch with exotic vegetables.

Waragainstsleep · Oct 13, 2011, 09:07 AM

It amazes me what gets watched and what doesn't. I won't list the cancelled shows I would desperately love to have back how is Two and a Half Men on season 9? Its dreadful, has been from day one. I also just found out that Psych is on season 6. WTF?

Eug · 08:43 PM

These are the ratings as of Oct. 12.

2 Broke Girls (CBS): 5.7 - Full season pickup
New Girl (Fox): 5.0 - Full season pickup
The X Factor (Fox): 4.4
Last Man Standing (ABC): 3.5
Suburgatory (ABC): 3.2 - Full season pickup
Pan Am (ABC): 3.3
Terra Nova (Fox): 3.1
Revenge (ABC): 3.1 - Full season pickup
Person of Interest (CBS): 3.1
Whitney (NBC): 3.0 - Full season pick up
Unforgettable (CBS): 2.9
How to be a Gentleman (CBS): 2.7 - Cancelled
Up All Night (NBC): 2.6 - Full season pick up
Charlie’s Angels (ABC): 1.8 - Cancelled
Prime Suspect (NBC): 1.8
Playboy Club (NBC): 1.5 - Cancelled
A Gifted Man (CBS): 1.4
Free Agents (NBC): 1.5 - Canceled
Secret Circle (The CW): 1.2 - Full season pickup
Ringer (The CW): 1.1 - Full season pickup
Hart of Dixie (The CW): 0.8 - Full season pickup

Terra Nova's numbers are reasonable compared to other shows, but not for the cost. It hasn't been picked up for the full season yet. They said they'll air the 13 episodes, but no word on the rest of the season.

P.S. I saw the commercials for 2 Broke Girls and immediately decided not to watch it. Nonetheless, it is extremely popular. Same goes for New Girl. I saw about 5 minutes of Charlie's Angels and it was totally awful.

OTOH, Person of Interest seems OK for now.

Thorzdad · Oct 15, 2011, 09:29 PM

Man, tv is a brutal business. Did Charlies Angels or Playboy Club get more than two episodes in before getting cancelled? I'm sure they're both probably dreadful shows but still...

I made the mistake of stopping to watch some of Last Man Standing. Good lord, is it bad. Just more Tim Allen "man's world" humor with the most over-driven laughtrack I can ever remember hearing. I'm sure it got its 3.5 rating because of the name factor. I didn't see anything about the show that would be worth watching more than once, though.

Suburgatory is kind of interesting if you watch it in a "Det. Lupo moves to suburbia" sort of mindset. It has possibilities, anyway.

I'm pulling for Person of Interest and Unforgettable. A Gifted Man isn't too bad. Maybe a little too Ghost for my liking.

SpaceMonkey · Oct 15, 2011, 09:37 PM

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep

I also just found out that Psych is on season 6. WTF?

I haven't seen it recently, but I thought Psych was pretty good.

Waragainstsleep · Oct 16, 2011, 08:27 AM

New Girl isn't too bad, 2 Broke Girls is entirely unsophisticated to say the least. A bit like Two and a Half Jokes. Sorry, Men.

Psych is just waiting to become the next Diagnosis Murder with daytime syndication.

Its just annoying that anything a bit different and anything a bit more intelligent don't catch on. I'm longing for something a bit more thoughtful to last more than a season or two. TSCC, Caprica, Dollhouse, something like those. Just one would do.

11011001 · Dec 7, 2011, 06:56 AM

It would be a shame if it got cancelled. The story has just started to pick up.

I rather like this show. It reminds me of Heinlein's Tunnel in the Sky.

Eug · Dec 7, 2011, 11:18 AM

I watched about 10 minutes of an episode of Charlie's Angels before deciding I never wanted to watch it again.

I suffered through several episodes of Terra Nova but haven't bothered with it since October. Personally I hope it does get cancelled, to make room for something else. Same goes for shows like Pan Am... and also every 'reality' show on television. OK, fat chance, but one can dream...

'Terra Nova' fights against extinction - latimes.com

Fox's "Terra Nova," an expensive drama about a family that travels from the year 2149 to prehistoric times to try to save Earth, is fighting to survive past its freshman season. Because the show is costly and takes a long time to produce, Fox ordered only 13 episodes, the last of which will air on Dec. 19.

Now 20th Century Fox Television, the production studio that makes "Terra Nova" for the Fox network, is starting to lobby for a year two.

On the surface, the ratings for "Terra Nova" are not awful. It is averaging almost 10 million viewers in its Monday 8 p.m. time slot, and it is the No. 1 new drama among male viewers.

However, the pilot of "Terra Nova" alone cost about $15 million, and the show is one of the most expensive in history, so it may be hard Fox to justify a second year without higher ratings. The studio will likely try to make the argument that "Terra Nova" has done well in international sales, but that may not be enough to justify the financial risks of a second season.

Leonard · Dec 7, 2011, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by Eug

I watched about 10 minutes of an episode of Charlie's Angels before deciding I never wanted to watch it again.

Your not the only one. I watched the first episode and gave up on it. Same with Nikita. They ruined Nikita, from the looks of it. It used to be dark, brooding, technologically advanced...

Thanks for the info on Terra Nova. Hopefully FOX won't cancel it, but they've been know to cancel the good shows.

andi*pandi · Dec 7, 2011, 01:10 PM

I also lasted about 10 minutes into Charlies Angels. Horrible stuff. Rather have back Sarah Connor Chronicles.

I gave Terra Nova a chance on Demand, but didn't get addicted. I found it predictable but not horrible.

I am currently addicted to Psych as it's funny fluff and knows it.

design219 · Dec 7, 2011, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by Eug

"... the show is one of the most expensive in history..."

Wow, I'm surprised to hear that. I know they have special fx, but really, not so many. And how expensive is it today to make digital dinosaurs? I guess the cast is pretty large, but mostly unknowns.

I'm still watching, but mostly because there is so little resembling sci-fi on tv now. It is getting a little better, but still not a great show.

Eug · Dec 7, 2011, 02:40 PM

$15 million just for the Terra Nova Pilot.

As a comparison, the wrap-up movies for the Stargate TV show were less than half that cost. The Stargate episodes were in the up to $2 million range.

Thorzdad · Dec 7, 2011, 02:56 PM

Remember, though, Terra Nova had to build completely new sets, props, costumes, etc. and generate completely new CG for that pilot. $$$$$$$
Stargate, on the other hand, had years of existing sets, props, costumes, etc. as well as established CG models to use in the wrap-ups. $$$

I don't doubt, though, that Terra Nova is pretty expensive to shoot, though. Too bad it's lame.

Eug · Dec 7, 2011, 03:18 PM

Yeah, but studios don't generally put huge amounts like $15 million up front into a TV pilot. The investment into the show is cumulative over time. Then again, the Fringe pilot cost $10 million. However, usually big pilots are apparently in the $5 million range, although for only one hour.

Thorzdad · Dec 7, 2011, 03:32 PM

Terra Nova has a fairly large cast, too. I suspect, though, a ton of that money went into the CG. It was intended to be FOX's big new show, so I can see them spending some bux on the pilot.

Eug · Dec 7, 2011, 03:50 PM

Big cast with at least one bigger name cast member (the guy from Avatar), big set, and expensive CG.

But to me the whole show feels cheesy, in an 80s Steven Spielberg sort of way, which no longer cuts it for me a quarter century later.

Strangely enough, I actually like Sanctuary better, and that show is also cheesy, with terrible CG in comparison.

Thorzdad · Dec 7, 2011, 04:02 PM

Sanctuary, at least in the first couple of seasons, was almost entirely done green screen. No physical sets. And it really shows. I think they might have some actual sets now, but it's still largely green screen. But, it's a SyFy Channel show, so the lo-budget is a given.

I agree about the CG in both shows. The dinos look especially bad in TN.

andi*pandi · Dec 7, 2011, 04:12 PM

Falling Skies is a much better low budget scifi series. Is it low budget? It seems to be. Don't care though. Is it easier to CGI robots than dinos?

Eug · Dec 7, 2011, 04:25 PM

I'll have to check out Falling Skies. I haven't seen it yet.

As for Sanctuary, the first season actually cost $21 million for 13 episodes. That works out to over $1.5 million per episode, which surprises me. I was expecting closer to $1 million given just how bad a lot of the CG looks. The absolute worst were the "nubbins".

They hopped around the house like a 1980s PC video game.

BTW, apparently Eureka costs twice as much per episode as Sanctuary.