ADM
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
It’s still hard too believe that Columbia was still being used after 22 years service, it does seem to be asking for trouble, yet with Nasa suffering budget slashes it’s somewhat understandable.
Even though it was an old bird, it does seem the accident was not really down to her age but more due too a freak occurence. Back when she was launched she lost 20,000 tiles, yet she came back in one piece, which says to me that the shuttle’s can take a good battering before anything goes wrong.
It’s great to hear that Bush has promised Nasa additional funds to keep the space program going, and we might see the next generation shuttle, by the way you can see what that one looks like by watching the Enterprise intro, and according to that the next ship up should be Cochrane’s warp ship!!!
The one thing that I did like was that this crew was an international one, the joining of Israel, India and America, I hope that one day all the space agencies (America, Russia, China, Britain and France) will join together so that funding won’t be so difficult and we can look forward to going bodly where no person has gone before.
ADMI heard Bush say that the space program will continue, although I imagine it will be some time before the Shuttle program get’s going again.
This is no time for recriminations, but I was very surprised too learn that this Shuttle is the very same Columbia that was first launched in 1981, 20 years seems like a long time for what is one of the most sophisticated aircraft/space vehicle around. I would’ve have thought that Shuttle’s would be retired after 8-10 years service, especially when you consider the forces these craft are hit with during the launch, spaceflight and re-entry.
I think with Ion engines now being developed, it might be time to strap one on too a new kinda shuttle, give it a short burst and it should be able to break out of the atmosphere without the use of traditional and somewhat unreliable chemical rockets.
ADMGood on ya Saddy, I was wondering when you was going to bring this moron down a peg or two!!!
After what must’ve have been a stressful last 2-3 days the last thing you need is this, personally if this Siren doesn’t apologise I would kick him out.
Congrats on the site, it may not be too everyone’s liking, but it’s ok by me.
Oh and Siren, if you read the messages from Saddy before the board was changed you’d have known better than too write blatantly rude, obnoxious and arrogant posts, but you didn’t, so you’re a class 1 idiot.
ADMI would also like too offer my sincerest condolences to both the families of these brave men and women, and too the American nation and those who frequent this board.
This is shocking news, but I do hope that America continues to lead the way in this and many other ways, as they always have done.
There’s not much else I can say as I’m still shocked, except to say God bless America, from one of your cousins in the UK, as always …. we will stand beside you during this time.
ADMquote:
Originally posted by DiamondGeezer:
Sorry mate! I don’t even know what Farscape is! Just thought it was a scifi term. If it ain’t Xfiles I don’t know about it… sorry!!!!!!!!!
I think you can put it in the pub Diamond Geezer, and don’t worry about not knowing about farscape…you’re better off not knowing!!!
I think Xander at first was motivated by jealousy and simply didn’t trust Angel, he was new to the whole vampire thing and the fact that they took his best pal Jesse didn’t help much either.
So the combination of his feelings for Buffy and absolute hatred for all things vampirish left him with no doubt that regardless of a soul…Angel was evil.
And when Angel turned in Angelus, he must have felt his original concerns were justified and did not need any convincing that Angel was evil, so for him to lie like that was easy as he thought that not only should Angelus die, but Angel as well.
I’m not with the whole religion and buffy thing, it’s never used religion to further it’s stories, so there is really no point in commenting on it.
ADMquote:
Originally posted by The Invisible Lunatic:
Can someone PLEASE tell me what the hells a Blake’s 7 is?!
Blakes 7 is a 70’s programme that was made by the BBC, it followed the adventures of a group of outlaws on the run from Servalan.
Their ship was called the Liberator and was the fastest ship in the galaxy, it is remembered for such characters as Avon.
Has a cult following to do this day, and was more of an adult type sci-fi than other’s like Dr Who, many people have likened it to a 70’s version of Lexx.
ADMquote:
Originally posted by irishflame:
I know this sounds freakin’ idiotic, but what channel are the newest Buffy shows on ’cause I watch it on FX and am getting pretty sick of watching reruns. Also, what happened after Buffy and Tara get shot?
I think it’s on the UPN network in the US and if you’re in the UK then it’s Sky.
Buffy survives the shooting, but Tara is killed outright and this causes Willow to go over the edge, with Tara in her arms she summons an entity in the hope that she can beg for Tara’s life to be given back, the entity refuses and Willow get’s really mad and strikes out with magic at the entity.
Willow then goes on the rampage and hunts down Warren and literally skins him alive, both Buffy and Xander turn up after and pleads with Willow to stop. But she is too far gone and then begins the hunt too kill Andrew and Jonathan.
I won’t go into anymore detail, but the rest of the season it’s Buffy vs evil Willow, and Buffy ends up losing most of the time, until a certain Watcher comes back.
(And FX, when was you going to tell us you have your own T.V channel…hmmm!!!)
ADMThe issue over Dawn is still open too debate, you say her origins are not human and I agree, however, she is of Summer’s blood, that is why Buffy was able to close the gateway to the hell dimensions.
Slayer’s may be born with it and somehow the Watchers know of the coming of a slayer, but the watchers are not likely to know of Dawn as she was not given life until recently.
The srgument is left too Whedon’s imagination and what he chooses to do with the story, but it is conceivable for Dawn to be a slayer.
I say that as it’s unlikely that slayer’s blood ties are responsible for who they are, otherwise Joyce would’ve been a slayer, it’s seems likely that mystical forces are at work when a slayer is born, so in the same respect mystical forces were responsible for Dawn.
But whether it be by blood or magic, it’s still a possibility for Dawn to be a slayer.
The other indication is that there are only two other’s aside from Buffy that can hnadle a vamp in combat, Spike through his own vampire strength, and Xander, although he often comes off worse. Yet we’ve seen signs that Dawn possesses the strength to ward off vamps in combat, and she is only 15, but Buffy is training her, why would she do that if she did not think she could handle herself against a vamp.
It may well be to teach her to merely protect herself, but then why wasn’t the same training given to her best friend, Willow?.
Given Whedon’s penchant for throwing everyone off guard and misleading everyone, I wouldn’t completely rule out the Dawn slayer link just yet, and as we have seen there have been girls hunted by the first all over the world with the potential to be the next slayer.
The fact is, is that no one but Joss Whedon can know whether Dawn would become one, but there is a valid argument for and against it.
ADMThanks FX, I really wanted to know because the Dawn/Slayer thing was something that really needed clearing up.
We’re about 7 eps behind you in the UK and although it’s a spoiler, it’s kinda frustrating when you can’t join in on a discussion because of it, it was the same with Lexx, we had too wait about 4 months before we had a chance too discuss it and know what we UK’ers were talking about!!!
Of course by that time the whole thing had already been talked about and the Lexx series had ended in the US, so there wasn’t much point in going over it again, but at least it’s not as bad with Buffy.
Thanx again FX…
ADMI, too, was annoyed, as you might guess. I mean, need I repeat that Dawn isn’t really human?
Ummm, yes she is, the only difference being is that she was made by magic, but she was made to be human, it was her human blood that needed to be spilt in order for the key to be used. And as the key is a one shot deal she is no longer that, all that remains is a 15 year old human girl.
Joss Whedon has done some wacky things in the past and this is no different, perhaps it doesn’t work to your way of thinking, but heh, he keeps mixing it all the time, leaving you thinking you got something sussed and then turning it on it’s head.
And FX can you please clear this up coz I can’t make any sense of what you have written, i.e is Dawn the new slayer or not, and is the mystery of Giles actually a mystery or just fan paranoia???
ADMHiggs-Bosen, Quark-Gluon, what is it with these scientists?, it is exciting but you do wonder if they truly know what they are doing with these exotic matters.
And there’s a race on?…well that inspires confidence!!!
ADMquote:
Originally posted by Aleck:
The size of the [b]entire[/b] audience doesn’t matter when it comes to defining “cult.” The actions of a subset *of* that audience is what defines “cult.” The [i]Star Wars[/i] films may have an audience of millions upon millions of people, yet it still has a “cult” following among a *subset* of that audience. The cult following consists of people who are obsessed with the films (rather than your average Joe saying “oh, it’s a good series, let’s go see the new one when it comes out”). Same with [i]Buffy the Vampire Slayer[/i]. It’s got a large audience, but it also attracts a very strong devotion from a smaller group of fans.
–Aleck
Ummm, Aleck I’ve already said this, and please get lost Cbrate, I’m sick of you chipping in with a stupid remark.
ADM
quote:
Originally posted by Aleck:
The size of the [b]entire[/b] audience doesn’t matter when it comes to defining “cult.” The actions of a subset *of* that audience is what defines “cult.” The [i]Star Wars[/i] films may have an audience of millions upon millions of people, yet it still has a “cult” following among a *subset* of that audience. The cult following consists of people who are obsessed with the films (rather than your average Joe saying “oh, it’s a good series, let’s go see the new one when it comes out”). Same with [i]Buffy the Vampire Slayer[/i]. It’s got a large audience, but it also attracts a very strong devotion from a smaller group of fans.
–Aleck
Ummm, Aleck I’ve already said this.
ADMquote:
Originally posted by stormsweeper:
[QB]You want links?
[URL=http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=story&articleid=VR1117853475&categoryid=14&query=farscape&display=farscape& cs=1]http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=story&articleid=VR1117853475&categoryid=14&query=farscape&display=farscape& cs=1[/URL]And???…that’s not what my last post requested, I asked you to show me a link that showed SG-1’s performance against that of Farscape’s, I’m not interested in what Farscape did a year or two ago.
This only shows the cost of production, which you said yourself is costlier than SG-1 currently is, you’re dragging facts up that you’ve already mentioned.Another link here: [url=http://www.snurcher.com/reactions/ratings.html#Splain]http://www.snurcher.com/reactions/ratings.html#Splain[/url][/ QB]
Again, the point please???…this again is something that is not in dispute, it was the highest rating series at it’s time, but let’s be honest it got a much better deal than any other show on this network, i.e it was shoved in your face 24/7, got the prime time slot and programmes like Lexx were shown right on the back of it, all adds up to inflated viewing figures too me.
But most of you have provided nothing that has been said already.
ADMquote:
Originally posted by Grim:
and no some of the of the audience doesn’t indicate a size then, it just means some of the audience.
No matter how you phrase it, i.e a quota, a portion, whatever, it still relates to size, so let’s say 100,000 people is some, that look’s like a size too me.
ADM
quote:
Originally posted by Evil_Lister:
Let me re-state this again ok.Star Trek: TNG Film Franchise is LOSING money. Why? Cause all the movies SUCK! Why keep letting Paramount make more sh*tty movies when there is clearly an alternative.
There was never any argument over whether they sucked or not (aside from First Contact), but the alternative is even ****t*ier, so forget your DS9 movie…it’s never going too happen…thankfully.
And the franchise is losing money because the public are obviously bored of it as a whole, and targeting a section of the Star Trek fandom is not going too change that and will result in even more financial loss.You want another TNG movie, you’ll probably get it, but its just gonna be another flying ham in space. And when you weep for an equally crap Voyager film (because your all spoon fed drones), they will probably just kill the idea of more Trek movies alltogether.
No, I don’t really want another TNG movie if they can’t produce better than they have, and I won’t be weeping for a Voyager movie, because that won’t happen. They won’t kill the movies off altogether, but give it a very long time too see if interest in the franchise picks up.
So sad, so long, goodbye.
Only sad from your point of view, might be a good thing for it’s long term prospects.
ADMOne other thing is that light is pulled along by gravity and can be bent or sucked in by heavy gravitational bodies, therefore the force of gravity is much more powerful than light, which would lead me too believe that gravity must have an immeasurable speed, for instance a black hole must have a faster gravitational speed than light, otherwise light would not be sucked in and would continue as a constant, but basically the pull of a black hole has to be faster than light.
So from what I know of physics it simply is not possible to gauge gravity’s speed.
Imagine the universe like a big road that goes forever outward, light is being pulled along by the gravity that is expanding with the universe, so in essence it is gravity that is giving light emissions their speed, gravity can vary at different points in the universe and light can do nothing but react to whatever gravity dictates, giving light different velocities.
The same principle applies to warp theories, use gravity too beat light and you attain warp speed, i.e make a ship defy gravity and you defy light, then once done move the ship at a faster than light velocity, which is made easier because gravity in no longer an issue to be dealt with, don’t do it and you will be crushed by gravity.
ADMOne thing that Einstein was wrong about was the speed of light, researchers have shown that light does not in fact travel at a constant speed, so the original idea of it travelling at it’s estimated speed is incorrect, so with that in mind they could not have mapped the speed of gravity, as no one can know what the true speed of light actually is.
The idea is, is that if you peer back far enough see the origins of the big bang, at this point light travelled much faster, and as the universe expanded it became slower, but from our point of view light travels to us at a constant speed, but that is only from our vantage point on Earth, and we caculated it fronm the Earth, so light is not a constant in other parts of the universe, so in essence they have only mapped the speed of gravity on how we perceive the speed of light…it is by no means a universal constant.
ADMOk I see what you are saying but for me the cult tag has nothing to do with size of the audience. If a show or film or what ever has a big audience it doesn’t mean that it is not a cult or that it is any less of a cult than something with a small audience.
Look at Star War, it’s big, it’s very big and has been for years but it is still a cult because some of its’ audience see it that way.Sorry Grim, but you’ve just contradicted yourself in two sentences, you said that you don’t think cult status has anything to do with the size of the audience, then in the next sentence you say about Star Wars being a cult because some of the audience see it that way!?!, so some of the audience doesn’t indicate a size then?
Anyhoo, a cult for me depends on the fervour that people feel for a programme, a cult in normal terms usually means a small following of devoted individuals, but I think that could be said for many programmes, a lot more than appear on this board.
ADM[QUOTE]Originally posted by stormsweeper:
[QB]Fine, curently production costs are less for Sg-1 this season. 1.3 million per episode (cf. Variety mag) vs. 1.4 or 1.5 million for Farscape. However, the cost per episode to Sci Fi includes extensive rerun rights. They paid extra for the reruns to the first four seasons of SG-1. The cost of the 7th season is under wraps, but is reported to be much higher due to negotiations with Shanks and Anderson. Farscape was locked at the 1.4/1.5 figure.**Sci-fi also took SG-1 on too raise their profile and that there may well be a movie in the near future, which Sci-fi will do quite well out of, as opposed too doing a movie for Farscape.
I think the truth is, is that Sci-fi may have realised they could not afford both shows and the weaker of the two got the axe.
They may have paid for the re-runs but it made sense to do so, and it’s proving to be a success with the average rerun figure at 1.8.
And again the reports on costing for S7 (SG-1)is sheer speculation, but even if it were the case Sci-fi can now afford that luxury by lifting Farscape’s burden on the channel.
And as for the quoting of Farscape’s costing, well obvious those figures reflected the series when it ran, it’s quite reasonable to believe that the costs were due to rise if they continued.As for ratings:
Also, in 2001 and 2000, Farscape was their highest rated series. Numbers were on par with what SG-1 did this season.
**Again please offer a link that confirms as such, but I think it’s more likely that both series can only get a certain rating due too the amount of viewers Sci-fi actually has.
**It’s a well known fact that Sci-Fi would play Farscape before programmes like Lexx, so most times the figures were not a true reflection of it’s popularity.
In the UK it’s different, the sci-fi channel is for free, as I understand it in the U.S you need to subscribe to the sci-fi channel to view, so I think it’s safe too say that Sci-fi has a limited amount of viewers, so there is a cap too it’s peak audience which SG-1 has matched.
If you compared SG-1’s ratings on it’s previous network then you are likely to find that Farscape didn’t hold a candle too it.
ADMquote:
Originally posted by stormsweeper:
1. The “Henson asking for more money” was the first excuse Sci Fi put out there, although it was shot down for [i]not being true[/i].And this news came from where?,it seems that Sci-Fi have kept a low profile on this and they had their reasons which appear to be related to poor ratings.
And bear in mind that Sci-fi saying such a thing would no doubt result in a libel action from Henson, as Henson have not done so it’s either a case of just gossip or is actually true and Henson did not have a case against them.2. Farscape was their #2 rated show.
That really doesn’t say much when you consider the amount of Sci-fi actually on the channel, but regardless of this, it’s doubtful Sci-fi will pull a show just too pi*s off it’s fans.
All the Farscape fans have been swept up in a tide of emotion, to the stage where you all think it’s a personal vendetta against you by the Sci-Fi channel.3. SG-1 costs SciFi at least twice as much, possibly three times as much as Farscape did. For ratings that were at best .3 better than Farscape.
I’d like to see proof of that, as SG-1 came with an established set-up that didn’t need to start from scratch, also SG-1 appears to use less effects than Farscape.
And as for the ratings, well I’m gonna go with Mrs Hammer’s statement of saying that it was at least 1.0 ahead of Farscape, obviously she released that interview too make both Farscape fans and the general public realise there was just cause for the axing, I’m sure Henson productions would refute this if it weren’t true…let’s see if they do shall we.quote:
Originally posted by Grim:
Sorry ADM but I think buffy and angel are cult too. It’s just that they have made the cross-over into the mainstream because they are such good show.
Now the same can be said for LOTR but I think it would have a limited live span as the last one is out this. I do understand your point as I would love to talk Tolkien as well.[ 07-01-2003: Message edited by: Grim ]
I don’t think the request was just for LOTR, but for fantasy/Sci-fi films in general, so talking points would be longer than just the life of LOTR.
And yes, like I said Buffy and Angel has it’s cult audience, but that is offset by a large mainstream audience, and when you look at it like that then the word ‘cult’ is not as applicable as say Lexx, where the fans weren#t just casual viewers.
But it’s for the gaffer too decide what goes on, but there is a strong srgument for it, as you can compare Buffy an Angel with LOTR in them both having a cult following as well as a casual one.
I think Joss Whedon may have expected just a cult following for Buffy given that the movie of the same name didn’t perform so well, however, after Buffy’s success it must’ve been obvious that Angel would have more than a cult following.
ADMquote:
Originally posted by stormsweeper:
Gee, I never knew expecting your business partners to hold to a contract was a greedy act.
There was something quite recently about Henson requesting more money for Farscape, and basically was told that he could not have it.
Besides the fact that many shows (especially in America) get cancelled due too poor ratings at a whim, Farscape is no different, is performed badly…it got shelved, couple this with the more money issue and it was an easy decision to make.
And too highlight that, SG-1 did very well and was rewarded with a seventh season.
I know Henson is trying too resuurect it by seeling it too other studios, from what I understand Henson studios are in a bad way financially and Farscape was their only hope, but I think the other studios will come too the same conclusion as Sci-Fi, not enough interest and too high an expenditure.
ADMDS9 would fail miserably, Paramount would never entertain this idea because they know it would be doomed too failure,
——————————————————————————–No it wouldnt, it would be refreshing to see a big screen serial. Just look at the box office recipts, the current Trek franchise it failing BIG TIME!! They are LOSING money.
**Yes it would fail, DS9 is old hat, if anyone at Paramount thought it would be useful as a movie vehicle why is it that none of the cast even been introduced into a Star Trek movie?
DS9 would not save Star Trek, they need fresh ideas, dragging DS9 out woould not be a fresh idea, it might make a good t.v movie but nothing more and the film would only be of interest too DS9 fans and that would not be worthwhile venture.
The whole idea behind the latest films was too get non-star trek fans interested, they tried for a broader appeal and failed, DS9 certainly would not capatilise on this situation, if anything it would make it worse.quote:
——————————————————————————–
And First Contact boring???,
——————————————————————————–Yes, Best of Both Worlds, as TV episode, and even the series finale, was MUCH better than First Contact. First Contact just happened to smell less like a steaming pile of sh*t. At the end of the day, its still a pile of sh*t.
**Best of both worlds I & II are unbeatable
episodes, the introduction of the borg paved the way for TNG too become successful and they will always be better in that respect.
But too date First COntact is the highest grossing TNG film taking $92 million at the box office, so your opinion counts for little when faced with this fact.quote:
——————————————————————————–
First Contact did well at the box office, and to date it’s the only movie that hasn’t been a rehash of old ideas
——————————————————————————–Hello? Didnt they bring the borg back in that movie? Wasnt that an old idea? The latest film has a new and original storyline, it just sucked. It could have been soo much better.
**When I said a rehash of an old idea I was referring to using a similar storyline to that of the series, which First Contact did not do, the fans were crying out for a Borg movie and they delivered, hence the highest gross, and oddly enough I haven’t seen any mention of anyone displaying the same interest for a movie involving either the Jem’Hadar or the founders.
From what I’ve read about this movie it seems to be a multiple crossover of a few TNG eps, including those that involved Data and Lore (Data and B-9) and also has tinges of Unification, but I can’t say for definite just how much they touch upon the series, but given that Insurrection was a blantant rip from a TNG episode, it wouldn’t surprise me too find the same was true of Nemesis.
quote:
——————————————————————————–
it gave the fans what they wanted, a good action packed movie and the Borg,
——————————————————————————–Then give the fans what they want, in a DS9 film, because alot of people thought DS9 was better than TNG. [url=http://us.imdb.com/CommentsShow?0106145]http://us.imdb.com/CommentsShow?0106145[/url]
I have noticed that alot of DS9 fans are also B5 fans, so it kinda cheats the polls as I wouldn’t consider them to be the true Star Trek fans, and that reflects in the way Paramount has had no interest in resurrecting DS9 in any shape or form, they know that the interest is not as entirely as it seems.
Read for yourself. Majority of folks loved it for the indept storyline, true you had to watch a few seasons to get it, but it still made for a great show.
**I won’t argue that the last seasons pulled it around somewhat, but it still does not warrant a movie, like I said it’s doubtful that a movie based on DS9 would be of interest too casual film-goers or those ST fans that do not regard DS9 as a good series, they would lose more money on this venture.
quote:
——————————————————————————–
if DS9 was so damn successful home come we don’t see their cast in anything anymore??
——————————————————————————–Avery Brooks: 15 Minutes w/ Robert De Niro [url=http://us.imdb.com/Name?Brooks,%20Avery]http://us.imdb.com/Name?Brooks,%20Avery[/url]
I’ve seen 15 minutes and Avery Brooks didn’t have a major starring role in it.
Curious, has any of the TNG folks starred in a movie with De Niro? Nope? Thought so.
**Try Patrick Stewart, I think it’s safe too say he has starred alongside some of the biggest names in Hollywood in his career, and without a doubt is a more accomplished actor than Avery Brooks.
It’s an odd comment to make, so what if Mr Brooks starred alongside De Niro, so have many other actors/actresses, doesn’t make him any different from anyone else.
And I’m sure with enough investigation I could a long list of famous people that the cast of TNG have starred alongside in bit part roles like Mr Brooks did with De Niro.Rene Auberjonois: Mostly voice talent since he is ugly as sin. [url=http://us.imdb.com/Name?Auberjonois,%20Rene]http://us.imdb.com/Name?Auberjonois,%20Rene[/url]
**I’ve seen Rene Auberjonois in a lot of things and he was well known before DS9.
Terry Farrell: TV Series Becker [url=http://us.imdb.com/Name?Farrell,%20Terry]http://us.imdb.com/Name?Farrell,%20Terry[/url]
**I wouldn’t know about Becker, I’ve never seen it, so I can’t comment.
Armin Shimerman: Did a few seasons of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. [url=http://us.imdb.com/Name?Shimerman,%20Armin]http://us.imdb.com/Name?Shimerman,%20Armin[/url]
**Bit part role, has never been in a long term series like DS9 since.
Nana Visitor: Dark Angel [url=http://us.imdb.com/Name?Visitor,%20Nana]http://us.imdb.com/Name?Visitor,%20Nana[/url]
**Same as Armin Shimmerman, no long term features in any t.v series, in fact none of them have had what I would regard as starring roles in a series, they have all been bit parts.
The same could be said for many of the TNG crew to be fair, but they have been more successful, Jonathan Frakes for Roswell, Levar Burton and Denise Crosby in many directorial Trek episodes and Marina Sirtis has had a few major roles in films, but most of all Patrick Stewart for films like X-Men, Conspiracy Theory, Dad Savage, Dune and Excalibur.I think Berman didnt have any direct intervention in DS9 until after TNG ended, and thats when it started to get really good.
**Berman has had the reins for Star Trek since Roddenberry’s passing in 91, he actually created DS9 and wrote the first episode
‘Emissary’, TNG finished a year after DS9, and as this was his first project since Roddenberry’s TNG, it’s doubtful he had no intervention during it’s first season.PS
Let me guess, you prefer Farscape over LEXX?Nope, completely wrong, I can’t stand Farscape and prefer Lexx anyday of the week.
ADMquote:
Originally posted by stormsweeper:
[url=http://www.tvguide.com/newsgossip/insider/]http://www.tvguide.com/newsgossip/insider/[/url]
TVGO: And that’s a bad thing… ?
Hammer: They had brilliant and sophisticated writing, but it was so narrow that it basically was an invitation to not tune in if you weren’t totally familiar with the show. It was brilliant when you got it, and some of the characterizations were truly amazing, but it took a little too much work.I think she hit the hammer (no pun intended)on the head with that statement, I personally didn’t like it for other reasons, but it’s no surprise not many chose too tune in, it didn’t cater for newbies and unlike SG-1 it just wasn’t something you could get straight into.
Also if you caught it when a bad ep was shown you’d realise that as it was more serialised and that it could have been the norm.
I found the answers she gave to make sense, Lexx pretty much went the same way, but the Lexx fans got the answer from the producers and makers and we accepted their decision for the best part, Lexx was not likely too pick up any more viewers because like Farscape it was too serialized and ultimately too difficult to get into, so Lexx went out on a high.
Unfortunately the makers of Farscape should’ve have acknowledged the same and didn’t and even now they refuse to admit that the show was on a downward spiral, if they had then maybe they could’ve cut a deal with Sci-Fi to air and produce the final shows and give the programme a proper send off.
Then Henson and Co started throwing their weight around and tried to dictate terms to Sci-Fi, and if that happened to me I would react the same way, i.e get stuffed, so if anyone’s too blame it’s Henson, he got greedy and paid the price.
ADMquote:
Originally posted by CBrate:
Cult TV. Pretty obvious, isn’t it?.
No in fact it isn’t, cult t.v traditionally applies too non-mainstream programmes such as Lexx, even though Buffy and Angel may have a cult following they also have a mainstream audience, you can’t call it a cult because there is a huge following, otherwise by that logic The Lord of the Rings deserves the same status.
And I think the more obvious reasoning for Buffy and Angel being here is for three reasons, 1:Saddy loves it, 2:It was requested by some of the board members, and 3:It’s likely to introduce more members too the board.
ADMquote:
Originally posted by Jabba The Hunt:
Hi Guys. I know I hav’nt been here in ages, I actually cant remember when I was last here. I meant stop by earlier but I’ve had loads of school work. Anyway I didnt think my return was big enough to make a new topic over so I thought I would just say hi here and then get on with the reply. (The Hi bit went on longer than intended).I can’t see why they will stop making Star Trek films, remember most films that are made don’t make a profit. Star Trek films tend to bring in a reliable, if slighly lower, profit, and why would they sabotage their own profits by releasing it at a time they didnt think would make money?
I really hope they do make a film about a different group of characters, DS9 is kinda finnished with what happened at the end of season 7, although it could be interesting to see them try and tell us what happens in a film… maybe. Voyager doesnt look set to become a film what with Janeway becoming an Admiral. So I think Enterprise is the best candidate for the next film, that could have lots of different plots to it eg. The Temporal Cold War, Klingons (might explain the thing with the head ridges?). Anyway I’ve been typing for far to long no-one will read this far down [img]images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img].
Nice to be back.
If it was to be Enterprise then we’d be waiting quite a long time for it, as it’s unlikely they would do one while the series was still going, and that Enterprise has still yet too establish itself.
It might be a good thing in a way as I get the impression that Star Trek’s interest has dipped somewhat, so maybe the fans will be crying out for one in six years time.
ADMquote:
Originally posted by Rag:
I’m with the voices of descent on this one. While I would love nothing more than to natter (or type) for hours about the film/book/world, it’s not Sci-Fi. It does bug me when people lump fantasy in with Sci-Fi. It has a perfectly good genre of it’s own. There is nothing even vaguely sciency about it. Granted it is fiction, but that is where the similarities end.That’s why I didn’t vote for it (or spider-man) in the polls.
Having said that, why is there a Buffy and Angel section on this board…hardly Sci-Fi is it!!!
ADMquote:
Originally posted by snooklepie:
June 2002- Phillips demostrate the first miniature optical disc drive, capable of storing 1Gig of data on a disc about 3cm across. Apparently this new technology could be incorporated into mobile phones within the next couple of years, enabling them to store up to 25000 digital photos, something like 48 hours of MP3, and store several movies. we seem to be getting more and more information into smaller and smaller storage.
how long will it be before Star Trek technology,as we see it in the show, will seem ‘quaint’? will progress outrun our imaginations? [img]images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img] what do you think?
SInce the advent of DVD it’s only been a matter of time before thing’s like this happened.
When the Bio-memory and Quantum computers come into fruition we will see a technology explosion the like of which we have never seen before.
Not only will it be the case where thing’s will get faster, they will get smarter, and it is hoped that the theoretical formula’s and ideas that are currently unfeasible will become a reality with the use of this advanced AI.
I’m not that excited about this development, as it’s only a storage device and can’t do much more, but it’s good in the sense that the capacity for storing information will become more compact.
The real breakthrough will happen when we can process gig’s worth of information at this size.quote:
Originally posted by Bekka:
i was reading an article in one of the celabrity mags (they alyays have them at work)that said something along the lines of:
an inquest has found that (i really should rembmber his name its only right [img]images/smiles/icon_sad.gif[/img] ) died of an overdose. the star who played mark (beckys boyfriend/husband) in roseanne and doyal in angel (before being fired for unkown reasons) died in his freinds home.
i didnt even know about most of this :
that he had died
that he was the one who played mark
that he had been fired rather than quitingit is very sad [img]images/smiles/icon_sad.gif[/img]
Glen Quinn was his name, and I think he was fired due to his problems, he was receiving medication for depression and I think he is death was quite sad, apparently he died alone several weeks ago.
To be honest I didn’t think his role as Doyle was that good, but it’s a shame too hear his life when into freefall since then.
ADMSo DS9 adds up too being the biggest cock-up in Star Trek history, no actually the biggest cock-up in Sci-fi history, so thanks Berman for wrecking Star Trek.
Rag, what I actually meant was that the franchise might not have suffered if it wasn’t for DS9, I see it as being a cock-up in financial terms and the loss of some it’s fanbase. I don’t think it’s any coincidence that thing’s have gone downhill since DS9.
But in terms of being the worst sci-fi programme then I’d agree with you, progs like Andromeda hold that distinction.
ADMThey had to do the same thing for the first few ST:TNG films, introducing characters and old enemies that people didnt know about because they simply didnt watch the show.
WTF are you talking about…they didn’t have to that at all, what old enemies???, Soran wasn’t an old enemy and neither were the Son’a, the Borg might have been, but what difference does that make, a five year would only take a few seconds too realise the Borg were mean cyborgs on the loose.
And they didn’t need too introduce characters anymore than any other film, besides TNG was watched more than DS9 simply because it was the first trek series since TOS.
Picard is probably the most recognisable captain since Kirk, the other’s get forgotten, most of all Sisko, and if DS9 was so damn successful home come we don’t see their cast in anything anymore??? Avery what’s his face…haven’t seen him in anything since DS9 (must have wrecked his career), the rest of them pop up in bit parts now and again, and how come you see Levar Burton and Jonathan Frakes directing both Voyager and Enterprise eps, haven’t seen any DS9 cast memebers doing that.
If anything the rot started during and after DS9, it’s been downhill ever since, Paramount tried too revive the flagging franchise by radically introducing a female captain and the return of the Borg in Voyager, but Berman and DS9 had already done enough damage.
You could tell that DS9 had done badly as it wasn’t until the last 2 seasons they tried to move it away from being stuck in that glum station when the Defiant was introduced, and the founders plotline was added through desperation…but by then it was a little too late.
So DS9 adds up too being the biggest cock-up in Star Trek history, no actually the biggest cock-up in Sci-fi history, so thanks Berman for wrecking Star Trek.
ADMDS9 would fail miserably, Paramount would never entertain this idea because they know it would be doomed too failure, even the Voyager crew got touted as being given a shot…but no mention of DS9, why?, coz it sucked and was not liked.
And First Contact boring???, there’s many thing’s that can be said about First Contact, but boring isn’t one of them, in fact it’s why Berman thought Enterprise might work (following on from the Zefram Cochrane story arc), you’re the only Trek fan I’ve come across that think’s the total opposite of every other trek fan I’ve met.
First Contact did well at the box office, and to date it’s the only movie that hasn’t been a rehash of old ideas (aside from Generations), it gave the fans what they wanted, a good action packed movie and the Borg, and if it had done as badly as you’d thought, then the idea of introducing a continuation of the Borg theme in Voyager might have been given up, but it gave new life too the Borg and saw the introduction of the Borg queen and 7 of 9.
So sorry pal, your remarks just about contradict First Contact’s box office success and as for DS9 for a movie…more chance of Shatner and Co returning (and Deforest Kelly would be more interesting than Sisko…and he’s passed away(R.I.P)).
ADMI hope Joss finds a home for Firefly, haven’t seen it, but I’m in the belief that his work deserves a good shot.
One thought is for him to maybe approach on the UK’s studios, perhaps Sky might look at it (although they are part of Fox), and then Channel 5, as they were in partnership on Lexx for the early years, and dare I say even the BBC might have a sniff (They did Joss’s The Watcher), I would have thought that they would all bend over backwards to be tied in too Mr Whedon’s work, talk about a good PR scoop!!!
ADMI think it ever did come down to being a risk to the world, then there are ways of getting around it, it’s been said that there are genetic markers left in a clone’s celluar structure that identifies them as a clone.
Certainly world leaders would undergo regular screening if a threat became present.
Yes we do always here opposition to new scientific marvels, and for the best part they come from the hated enemy of science…religious morons.
These are people praying on other’s fears, all because it doesn’t fit into their way of thinking, i.e it is an afront to god…ummm crap, it’s not an afront, it’s simply because their faith can’t handle it so it must be evil.
Unfortunately many of the world’s population live in the dark ages, in that science is the work of the devil, either because they don’t understand it or are too ignorant to even try.
Face facts, religious nuts, our progression as a species hasn’t come from a superior being, everything that has happened isn’t due to the grace of god, it’s damn well science, we invented it and we did it all by ourselves.
Anyhoo, back to topic, the main problem is , is that it will take another 20-30 years before the big doubters pop their clogs, we have at least three generations of the one’s that say ‘things were better when we were younger’, they live in the past and refuse too accept the present, and these are the one’s that hamper progress, oh them, and the religious nuts!!!
ADMquote:
Originally posted by Rag:
They will will probably write it off as “the created memories of her part in the adventures”.
I s’pose they thought that the kids would be confused it they only saw more recent series with Dawn in, and then the cartoon just ignores her existence. And lets face it, it’s gonna be dumbed down and cleaned up for the teenies. It’s not often you get adult oriented cartoons these days.
I’ll watch it (if it stumbles into my eyeline), but I’m not expecting it to become the centre of my universe.
They can acknowledge her existence alright, but how can you explain that Buffy’s sister is the same age as her?, well they can make out what they like in a cartoon, but we’ll know better!!!, and I don’t think MT (Dawn) will be able to pull off the voice of a 10-11 year old.
ADMI get the feeling that the real hard work has been done, everthing that follows on from it is somewhat easier.
As the genetic structure is investigated more and more the control over our DNA and cells will become easier. and our body’s contain cancer killing cells, so it’s just a case of turning the buggers on!!!
I would surmise that creating a clone is the pinnacle of genetic research, with that done everything else will fall into place.
It’s been in our history that if a small breakthrough is made then bigger one’s will follow, i.e the space program>moon landing>space shuttle>interstellar probes>mars probes>ion drives> and then maybe warp speed.
The same should be true here, science very rarely goes out on a limb nowadays, if they say it’s possible then you can be pretty sure it will happen.
There is so much being acheived, that the gap between it being science fiction and science fact is closing every year.
Personally I don’t mind science being in a rush, I want too see these things happen in my lifetime, but on the flipside we could be going so fast it endangers humanity (sod humanity…I want it now!!!)
But on genetics, from I can ascertain, I will say that cancer will be cured within ten years.
ADMquote:
Originally posted by Logan:
[i]This forum is makin my brain hurt[/i]Err, I don’t think so. I mean astronomy is kinda like real sciencey stuff doncha think? Or am I thinkin’ of astrology? Hmmm…
Yeah, I guess so….i’ll shut up!!!
ADMThis is the problem, there cannot be a clear line drawn, stem cell research would be of great benefit, but we also have the debate over whether cloned embryo’s could be used.
Most governments have just tried to ban it all before the law can be abused, but where international law cannot be used you will find these renegade scientists claiming they were the first.
The immortality scenario works to a degree, certainly on the physical aspects, organs can be replaced and you can add say 10 or 20 years to your life span. But it’s doubtful that the body will accept new tissue when going past a certain age, it’s not just organs that were designed too age but the entire human body, the truth is, is that no matter how hard you try you cannot cheat death.
However, the idea behind The Sixth Day (yes that silly Arnie flick) may not be a complete impossibilty, should it ever become possible to either take some of what you are to a new cloned body remains to be seen, but the day will come where a computer will be able to store and hold your brain functions independant of the need of your body.
As for becoming immortal in the body you were born in, personally I can’t see it, there is so much you have too beat for it too happen.
As for these rogue scientists, they are playing with a science that can be as potentially devastating as a nuclear weapon, I’m certainly not going too applaud them for it, they have simply done what we already knew what was possible, this is like children showing off too their peers, kinda like ‘Look at me, I made a clone aren’t I the clever one’, an acheivement yes, but not one to be particularly proud of.
Let’s hope the world can get a grip on this before it get’s out of hand, but like I said I don’t deplore cloning, but there is a 50-50 split in what it can be used for…good or evil.
ADMquote:
Originally posted by LexxLurker:
Actually I was going to bring up Pigs but it was late.You’re right on the money. Pig skin is almost identical to human skin sans sweat glands. Pig skin is used to test almost all human made cosmetics and topical medicines. Their blood is also very similar as is their genetic makeup. It wont be long.
It makes you wonder if the missing is actually an ape or some kind of pig monster!!!, there is living proof of this already…see Bekka on Andromeda!!!
Seriously though, the only problem with using pig organs is that the human body tends to reject the new organs, it’s very rare (unless it’s a minor organ) for a transplant too succeed, however, with gene manipulation it’s possible too overcome by turning off the gene’s that would reject such transplants.
ADMFarscape best show???…so how come it was canned?, I don’t think enough people voted to make that assumption, besides we Lexx fans always have the pleasure of knowing that Lexx ended without it being shown the door…so for me Lexx is the better.
ADMquote:
Originally posted by Headgehog:
I found this at [url=http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/art-main.html?2002-12/17/10.00.tv]scifi.com[/url]What no Willow?! You can’t have Buffy without Willow! And was Dawn even on the show when the scooby gang was in high school?
Don’t worry Headgy, they probably will have Willow in it, they always do that when promoting new shows, rather than give the whole cast list they just break it down.
You’re right about Dawn, she can’t be in it, and if she was she’d have to be eleven as Buffy is approx 5 years older than lil’ sis and she was 16 in the beginning.
ADMquote:
Originally posted by LexxLurker:
Well Ill tell ya something even more interesting than that about mice =0Their genome stucture is quite similar to ours. In fact next to humanity only mice have had their genome mapped. They’re that important to research, but heres where I blow your mind:
Frank Herbert of Dune fame, wrote about organic machines called Axlotl tanks, used to clone/grow organs/etc…
Recently the USA grew healthy living *Human* kidney tissue from a mouse. Stay Tuned.
It doesn’t surprise me, for some bizarre reason someone decided to give a mouse a human ear, it was weird seeing this mouse with an ear on it’s back.
I’m not sure whether thy’ve mapped pigs yet, but I’ve heard that pigs are the only animals where they’re organs can be adapted for use in the human body, although this does not involve genetic research.
I don’t it will be too long before cells and damaged organs could be replaced in the human body.
ADMMandara, like Lexxlurker said there is never anything personal going on here, nobody goes out of their way to ignore other’s.
It’s simply that this site isn’t always buzzing with activity (especially this time of year), couple that with the fact that the sci-fi world has very little to offer at the mo, you get very little input on the board.
As for birthday’s, well mine was 19th November and no one noticed, but it doesn’t bother me and it shouldn’t you.
The truth is everyone here ignores everyone else, most people will only respond if a post interests them or if they can be bothered. The net has so very little too offer nowadays, so it’s nice too come somewhere to read posts and reply, but when there isn’t much activity it can be a downer, but it really is the nature of this board, sometimes it can go three days before someone comes up with something to post or even reply.
Cheer up Mandara, things aren’t always as bad as they seem.
ADMI did catch the last two seasons of the show, and it’s obvious the producers realised how much time they’d been spending writing rubbish, because in the last two seasons they did make DS9 more interesting….but it was too little, too late, and too give them a movie for two seasons…well they ain’t worth it.
Although, it does need fresh blood and new ideas in the movies, because the fans are starting to sense that these films are not being made for the fans, but more to line Berman and Co’s pockets.
But Sisko is a forgotten character and should stay that way, bringing him back along with the Dominion will only serve to add fuel to the argument of the films lacking originality. The biggest problem is that no one deserves to take over from the TNG crew, Voyager’s crew didn’t stand out and Enterprise is more of a Turkey than the one you’re currently stuffing your face with.
First Contact worked as the Borg did carry the threat well, the Dominion wouldn’t carry the same threat and are no more frightening than the Ferengi.
All it really needs is an original story and some edge of the seat thrills, I agree with taking the Federation to the brink of extinction with lot’s of big battles and action, but then it won’t happen, because Berman obviously doesn’t care anymore.
ADMquote:
Originally posted by Evil_Lister:
In addition, none of the NextGen movies were any good. I really hope they kill this portion of the movie franchise because it just keeps getting worse.I hope they do a DS9 movie soon, bring back The Sisco 10 years after he supposedly died, fight the dominion again.
Bring back DS9?, cripes no one will go too the cinema if they brought that back.
First Contact was excellent and well done, but the other two (haven’t seen Nemesis yet) have been crap beyond belief, but it would be a lot worse if they had the boring send you too sleep cast of DS9 running the show.
ADMquote:
Originally posted by LexxLurker:
Who is the actor that played Wormtongue? It looks a lot like the guy that played Piter Devries in Lynch’s version of Dune.
I think the actor’s name is Brad Dourif, he’s always popping up in movies too play the weasel type bad guy, he has the right face for it.
ADMSnooklepie, too copy that post for printing, hold down the right button and from the last word drag your mouse too the top of the the post, it should be highlighted when you have done it, then hold down CTRL and press C (this copies the post), then open up notepad or Word and click on the page and then hold down CTRL and press V (this pastes the post into the document), then just click print and hey presto!!!
ADM
