Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
quote:
Originally posted by snooklepie:
so, who watched it on Sky One last night? what did you think? assuming you guys in the States are already well into the show, is it well worth getting into? has anyone any thoughts on the direction the show will take, the characters, etc?
i think my lasting impression from the first show is seeing that wrecked car floating around in the debris. i know, considering the utter destruction wrought on an entire planet it would be impossible for something like that to remain as intact as it was. however what sent me cold was what it represented. a few bits of rock floating in space…fine. we have a Farscape scenario, and the shuttle has been shot through a wormhole. but no, the car really told us that the Earth was gone. no more. all human civilisation, history, gone. flora and fauna, gone. the beauty of some of the wildest places on Earth, gone. I think the car was the most chilling sci-fi image i have seen in a long time.
Yeah, it was a scary vision, but I hoped that the story wouldn’t have gone the way it did, as it does seem all were in store for is another take on the X-Files idea, lot’s of conspiracy and black ops.
Because of that I’m not finding the premise that exciting, to me it does also seem like an extended series based on the idea presented in The Terminator, i.e going back in time to change the future, that works for a few movies but a possible six season series will be tedious.
But it’s only the first ep so I hope I’m gonna be proved wrong, coz god knows quality sci-fi shows have been drying up as of late!!!
ADMquote:
Originally posted by elmey:
Target audience for whom? Oh, you must mean for the advertisers–I guess that’s the group they can get money out of most easily.
Not at all, the only time advertising changes is during the day to appeal to housewives and the afternoons for the kids, in the evenings the advertising has no preference.
While I’m not in the UK, there are similar issues with public television in all countries. They program for a much wider audience range than commercial TV (usually their charter demands it). And imagine the outcry if a network funded by tax monies started buying programming for top dollar from abroad instead of encouraging domestic production.
It just doesn’t work that way.Yes I imagine there are issues in other countries, but that does not mean that the BBC are less guilty of what I’ve said against them.
Like I said, the BBC, as the only broadcaster with sufficient funds ten years ago could have created a satellite network, but were not prepared to offer more than the rubbish they provided, it was obvious they were thinking they had it easy so why change it?
As for not paying top dollar for American shows, well that’s rubbish, as if they had invested early on the price of these shows would have been cheap in comparison today.
Sky has been successful because they did invest and have reaped the awards, and even though they have to pay a large sum of money to secure the top US shows they are in position to do so due to them changing the face of UK broadcasting by bringing the best the US has to offer to this country.
The BBC was influenced by the ridiculous old fogies who did not want to see US T.V because of their predigist views.
And although their charter may have to offer a broad range of T.V, it is still not offering variety and quality and this just has not changed.
So we’ve already had the outcry against foreign T.V over U.K productions, but Sky does not suffer from this even though it’s subscribers pay £35.00 per month to watch. True that you’ve got to accomodate for the older viewers, but their main channel should be made for the 18-35’s who tend to watch more T.V during the weekday evenings and the older viewers watching on the second channel.
And this country has no imagination when it comes to programming, all the dramas are about hospitals or cops, or the dreary lives of people in Manchester, Liverpool or London. The truth is, is that this country is awful at making a good action series or sci-fi, that’s why we are grateful to America for those shows.So you got both; watch Sky now–when you’re
36 you can switch to the BBC.
Well, I’m 32 now and I can’t see my opinion change at 36, I’ve lived through 20 years of pure crap from the BBC and I’m justified in saying it hasn’t changed, many of my generation looked on hoping for something more interesting to come along, and then our prayers were answered with Sky.
I find nothing even remotely interesting on the BBC aside from two comedy shows and like many others are angry that we have to pay for a service we don’t like, we should get the choice to not pay for it and not watch it, but instead the BBC uses the claim that a colour T.V licence pays for it’s radio and permission to use the T.V in the first place, I’m sorry but they do make enough money to have created their own satellite service to offer a better choice, but they still get it wrong while more people sign up to sky to get a better product,
ADM[ 04-10-2002: Message edited by: elmey ]
[ 04-10-2002: Message edited by: elmey ]
quote:
Originally posted by snooklepie:
ok, seeing as we seem to be rapidly running out of gates…
1) why can’t we build any more?
2) has anyone wondered why there are 3 gates one one world?
3) have i missed something ????
1)Gates are beyond the technical specs of even the Ga’ould, and as the human race is technologically inferior to them it’s impossible to build our own gate, besides it’s made of pure naquita and it’s doubtful we the SGC could make enough to create a gate.
2)There might be the same amount of gates on other planets, but it’s likely to be more on Earth because it’s seems obvious that the alien race found more life on Earth than on other planets, but no one has explained on SG-1 why the alien race should build the gates in the first place, they have never really gone into any detail as to how the gates came to be, just that the Ga’ould used them.
3) Nope you’re in the dark as much as the rest of us, all we can do is speculate.
ADM
