Re: NBC Universal is dividing TV studio

Mac Breck wrote:

>Jack Bohn wrote:
>> Mac Breck wrote:
>>
>>> List of Sci Fi Channel (United States) programs
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sci_Fi_Channel_%28United_States%29_programs
>>>
>>> Sci Fi Channel (United States)
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sci_Fi_Channel_%28United_States%29
>>>
>> You know, I see no mention of "Crossing Over With John Edwards"
>> on these pages.
>
>Not to put too fine a point on it, but....
>
>It's "Crossing Over with John Edward" and it should be there.
>http://www.johnedward.net/
>
>John Edwards was one of the Democratic candidates for President.
>http://johnedwards.com/
>
>While the political candidate wasn't my favorite, I still don't want to
>mix him up with John Edward.  :P

My bad, that *is* too cruel.

>> Having some time, I've put their First Run series in
>> chronological order and hunted down selected Second Run series,
>> the miniseries (marked with +), and some original movies (-):
>
>What is the * for?

The serieses.  Looking at the list they just seemed to need some
delimiter.  Not just so I could put a minus sign in front of the
SciFi Channel movies!  Really!!

>> 1997
>>  *Mission Genesis
>Don't remember it.

Nor I.  Looking at the list, it seems I started getting the
channel in 2000.

>> 1999
>>  *Farscape (2003)
>Really liked it.

Coming in late to this, and Stargate, I never started watching
either.  Totally my fault for missing them.

>> 2000
>>  *Exposure (2002)
>Don't remember it.

Experimental or European short films, several in an hour.  Varied
quality -it goes without saying- but interesting.  I think they
also sponsored a contest open to the public.
You know, this would seem to be the type of show that would be
about as cheap to produce as an interview show (of which the only
title on those pages was The Antigravity Room).  The amateurs,
independents, or experimentalists would have already taken the
gamble of making the films, and you're just paying off to buy the
rights to the successful ones.  I'll have to guess the ratings
were really bad, because the alternative is that there just
aren't that many successful experiments.


>>  *Lexx (2003?)
>Couldn't stand to watch it.

Watched one episode, didn't need to see more, having seen the
movie Galaxina.

>> 2001
>>  *The Chronicle (2002)
>I could watch it. (Never saw all of the eps.)

Somehow missed it, but I'm a big fan of Weird Al's song about
such a paper, "Midnight Star." DVD set?


>>  *Crusade
>When I saw this in first run on TNT, and wasn't used to the characters
>or the music, I thought it was so-so.  After I watched the series a few
>times, and got to know the characters better, and see the little
>nuances, and got how the music set the just the right alien-foreign tone
>for the show, I really liked it.  The music is too loud in places, and
>the end "music" from "Ruling from the Tomb" is awful, but sans
>TNT-Atlanta interference, I could see loving this show as much as
>Babylon 5.

To me, this was one step to sf/fantasy conventions and away from
the "reality" of Babylon 5: the "guild" of thieves, the easy
acceptance of the Technomage, the Excalibur main gun.  However, I
could imagine it settling down to get good.

>> 2002
>>  +Taken
>Bloated.  Watching it was a chore.  Isn't it mandatory to mention Steven
>Spielberg in the title?

It's not in the Wikipedia article title, the way "Frank
Herbert's" is in the article title for their Dune miniseries.
I'm sure the SciFi Channel didn't need it to be mandatory to flog
the name as often as possible.

>>  -start of Sci Fi original films
>>  -Legend of the Rangers

The next step away.

>> 2003
>>  *Battlestar Galactica (c)
>Started out looking promising, but went steadily downhill.  Petty,
>trashy, like a daytime soap set in space.  Sold my DVDs.

Still watching, but there can be no arguing about tastes.

>> 2004
>
>>  *Ghost Hunters (c)
>Never watched it.  It's sort of a do***entary, right?  I can take this
>kind of stuff as a fictional story, but not as a do***entary.

Never watched it, although I might this week, when they visit my
neighborhood Wright Patterson Air Force Base.  I really don't
know how they can have a show about Ghost Hunters run four years
if they haven't caught a ghost yet.  ("We're here where this
scary story took place... we're here in the dark...  Aaaah!  What
was that?  I don't know.  Well, see you next week.")

>>  *Mad Mad House
><spit>

Never watched it.  However, pairing this with Who Wants To Be a
Superhero seems to suggest they've hit upon the interesting idea
of sci fi fans as authors of a continuing fantasy script starring
themselves.  Not that that's something *we* want to see...
there's a reason some are professionals and some are fans.

>> 2005
>>  *Firefly
>Similar reactuion to that I had with Crusade.  When I first saw it, I
>was put off by the twangy western score and sixguns, but on subsequent
>viewings I liked it more and more.

Now this is the rare show that was perfect -as a whole and in all
of its parts.  I suspect it would have had some bad episodes if
it had gone longer, and we'd seen more of the Blue Gloves who can
go anywhere and do anything... except track a miscellaneous group
of hoboes.

From the way your adverse reactions or "Never watched it"
responses ac***ulate post 2004, I can see where it fell into near
uselessness for you.

Oddly, for me, I don't watch much television, and didn't start
watching any series regularly until 2003 with BSG, (did their
earlier series not have as many repeat performance spots through
the week?) and added a second "gotta catch 'em all" show in 2005
with Firefly and 2006 with Doctor Who (and 2007 with Flash
Gordon, but I don't want to mention that.  It's not even an
argument of tastes, that one was pure self-torture.) so that it
seems SciFi has been on an upward trajectory.

-- 
-Jack