Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

SciFi Channel To Air A New Galactica Series 175

Posted by timothy from the production-values dept.
EvilBuu writes "The Sci-Fi Channel has begun airing ads announcing a full Battlestar Galactica series following the surprisingly (to some) good new mini series starring Edward James Olmos. Looks like it will be a straight forward continuation of the mini, with the same cast and more Cylon goodness!" According to this press release, Richard Hatch will guest star, and the show will air starting in January 2005.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SciFi Channel To Air A New Galactica Series More

SciFi Channel To Air A New Galactica Series

Comments Filter:

  • Welcome to February (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    New Battlestar Galactica Series Greenlighted [slashdot.org]
  • ...can be misleading from time to time, but i gotta say this looks like it's going to be very nice for the eyes :) i know, i know, that won't carry everything, but meh, i think it'll be fun to watch :)

  • no mas no mas! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 08, 2004 @01:44PM (#9914146)
    Granted, I wasn't old enough to have watched the original Galactica (I'm not even 30 yet), but I did watch part of the mini-series and was thoroughly bored. Why they're going to make a regular series out of it, I'll never know.

    One thing I *do* know is that as good as Stargate SG-1 is, it pisses me off that Stargate gets 8 seasons and counting *AND* a spinoff while Farscape got three years and change with an abrupt axing without doing the characters justice in the "ending".

    That was enough to tick me off originally. But then Sci-Fi made it worse by continuing with that idiot John Edwards who "talks to stupid people"... oh - and supposedly their dead loved ones too (*cough* cold read *cough*). And then they had those two retarded "dream experts" that made everything in their show about *sex*. Sci-Fi is turning into the fucking LifeTime network. Then that terrible "Taken" by Spielberg (or lucas - I can't seperate the two anymore) and then that attrocious three hour guerilla marketing (disguised as a documentary) for The Village which investigated how M. Night Shyamalan is really some sort of voodoo shaman kind of guy with magical powers really did me in for good.

    I canceled my cable last week due specifically to my dislike for the Sci-Fi network. I'll put that $120/mo into something more worth while and any shows that I deem worthy enough to waste my time watching, I'll just grab from bit torrent.

    Anyway, back to the original point. What is it with Battlestar Galactica? It's about as exciting and interesting as that really crappy "Dark Shadows" series (and don't even get me started on the Mormony Goodness of the show). Is it just that SciFi couldn't find the funding for their 400th Sci-Fi Original movie about killer bees, killer anacondas, killer bats, killer dragons, killer spiders, killer rats, killer mosquitos, killer cats, or alien viruses?
    • Yow! That was one heck of a comment there, but i do have to agree with some parts of it. Sci-Fi (and cable) in general aren't worth too much of my time. Sci-Fi will play the good flick (proper, not made for tv), but their own shows? Let's just say that i don't cancel anything to watch them (the new BG should be at least pretty though).

      As for dropping cable, i just scored a new gig that will pay for broadband and i'm dropping cable (and it's admittedly very reliable internet access) like a fucking rock for

    • Re:no mas no mas! (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      What is it with Battlestar Galactica? It's about as exciting and interesting as that really crappy "Dark Shadows" series (and don't even get me started on the Mormony Goodness of the show).

      I disagree. I'm a hard sci-fi fan. I occasionally watch sci-fi on TV but for the most part find it dirge that drives me running back to Iain M Banks, Neal Stephenson, Ken McCloud, Vernor Vinge, Peter F Hamilton et al.

      Anyway, my point is (the new) Battle Star Galactica is VERY well written. It passes the golden rules of

      • Re:no mas no mas! (Score:3, Insightful)

        by iantri ( 687643 )
        Anyway, my point is (the new) Battle Star Galactica is VERY well written. It passes the golden rules of good Space Opera (no plot holes, an imaginative but beliebable universe, character driven) with flying colours and bar Firefly is about the only decent (non-Japanese) scifi to appear in the last decade.
        *COUGH* Babylon 5 *COUGH*.
        • "*COUGH* Babylon 5 *COUGH*."

          Well, let's see:

          1.) No plot holes? - BZZt.

          2.) Imaginative but believable universe? - BZZt.

          3.) Character driven? - Half-credit. (see rule 2.)
        • no plot holes

          They've got to do away with AI missiles that are somehow fooled by simple flares.

          Oh, and another golden rule of SciFi they need to understand, if they want women to watch - don't murder babies onscreen in the first ten minutes.
    • So they turned the McGuyver action hero character central to the SG theme into a desk jockey.... Yeah.. that'll boost ratings as they replace his anger fed machine gun sprees with angst fed stapler accidents.
    • You know that they're making a miniseries to give Farscape a proper ending? It'll be called "The Peacekeeper Wars"
      • You know that they're [SciFi] making a miniseries to give Farscape a proper ending?

        They aren't making it. They have the rights to air it, but they had nothing to do with making it. If it had been up to them, it wouldn't have been made.

    • Re:no mas no mas! (Score:5, Funny)

      by pyrrhonist ( 701154 ) on Sunday August 08, 2004 @02:20PM (#9914343)
      Well, at least you're not bitter about it.
    • Boring? How can you say you found the new Battlestar Galactica boring? It sucked through and through. Didn't you orgasm?
    • When you have learned that your shit stinks then comment about Battlestar Galactica. otherwise go play your X-Box

    • Re:no mas no mas! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Daemonik ( 171801 ) on Sunday August 08, 2004 @02:51PM (#9914507) Homepage
      Sci-Fi has a Farscape mini series scheduled for next year too that's supposed to take up from where the series ended.

      As for why Sci-Fi schedules the shows that it does, it all comes down to money. Science Fiction shows are expensive and easy to screw up in the eyes of the hardcore audiences that follow them like they're Jim Jones with a fresh batch of kool-aid.

      The fact that Sci-Fi has any original programming is pretty cool, but it's far cheaper for them to run 'freak-of-the-week on their way to dvd' movies and 'reality' (*cough* Edwards *cough*) shows than to produce a good science fiction series.

      Also, considering that broadcast television has f****d up with Enterprise and couldn't figure out Firefly, a network that goes out on a limb to update a series like Battlestar Galactica, creates 3 Dune mini-series, buys up Stargate and spins off another series, is developing an Earthsea mini and is finally giving Farscape a mini isn't all that bad in my book. At least they're trying dude, which is more than NBC, CBS, FOX or the others can say.
      • The Farscape mini series (The Peacekeeper Wars) is scheduled to begin October 17th, not next year.
      • Two Dune mini-series: they conflated *Dune, Messiah!* with *Children of Dune*. But other than that and the mistaken Farscape date already corrected by a sibling post, you're right. But for a while there (before their most recent buy-out), SciFi WASN'T trying - there was a while there when they had a "no more space shows" order - on a SCIENCE FICTION network, no less. And let's remember that the only credit they deserve for Stargate is snapping it up when Showtime killed it and creating a marginally entertai
        • Thanks for the corrections.

          If I'm not mistaken Sci-Fi stopped ordering 'space' shows for a period because their financial outlook within Vivendi was grim and they were trying to make the company look better financially while in negotiations to sell it off.

          "no more space shows" order - on a SCIENCE FICTION network, no less

          Not all science fiction has to be about spaceships and aliens. Science fiction is best when it slices into what makes humanity tick not when it's about techno-babble and blue chicks.

      • One thing I *do* know is that as good as Stargate SG-1 is, it pisses me off that Stargate gets 8 seasons and counting *AND* a spinoff while Farscape got three years and change with an abrupt axing without doing the characters justice in the "ending".

      Stargate SG1 gets the best ratings the SCI-FI network has ever gotten, and is still breaking it's own records, whereas the original Farscape wasn't getting very good ratings, despite the fact that there is a very devoted fanbase for it. I might also want t

    • that idiot John Edwards who "talks to stupid people"... oh - and supposedly their dead loved ones too (*cough* cold read *cough*)

      I recall reading about how they would let the guests for the show onto the stage a while before the show started with the microphones live. What do you think the guests would talk to each other about? Possibly about the dead people they are hoping to hear from? Or at least enough information to classify them better to make it more like 'warm reading' than 'cold reading'.

    • Re:no mas no mas! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Chris_Jefferson ( 581445 ) on Sunday August 08, 2004 @05:00PM (#9915199) Homepage
      There is a very good reason that Stargate got 8 seasons and Farscape got 3 years.

      I tried starting watching farscape at the start of season 3, stargate at the start of season 4. Stargate I got 90% of within 3 episodes or so and picked the rest up. Farscape kept referencing back so many times that after about 4 episodes I gave up. I wanted to like it, I really did, but I just could not get into it.

      Now I've watched it from the start, and love it. But I also understand that you can't expect most people to put that kind of dedication into a TV series. Farscape just got so clever and complex that there was no way anyone could get into it.
      • This is very true, Farscape originally started my senior year of college, when I was too busy to watch TV, and then the two years after college when I was working or getting trashed/laid.

        I started to relax a little bit and spend time at home instead of in bars, and I couldn't figure out what the fuck that show was about...
    • I canceled my cable last week due specifically to my dislike for the Sci-Fi network. I'll put that $120/mo into something more worth while and any shows that I deem worthy enough to waste my time watching, I'll just grab from bit torrent.

      I cancelled my cable back at Christmas, 8 months ago. Read my reason here [mshiltonj.com]. I recommend getting a netflix [netflix.com] account. It's cheap, commercial-free and they've got tons of discs to choose from.
      • That was interesting.* I just realized I haven't watched TV all week. I'm seriously considering doing just as you've suggested. The only thing holding me back is the propensity my post office has for making me go there and wait on line to pick up even the smallest of packages.

        *It sometimes seems a shame that we can't moderate and comment in the same topic. But what if, by commenting, it made our moderation results visible? (E.g.: your post would have under it, "this comment was modded interesting by
    • Let's be clear about this. Farscape's ratings were limited because a lot of people just couldn't get past the "muppets in space" look. SG-1's stroke of genius was in not making Thor a regular.
    • I'll put that $120/mo into something more worth while and any shows that I deem worthy enough to waste my time watching, I'll just grab from bit torrent.

      Too well said! Hat's off to you my friend (be it black or white ;). You are wise beyond your years sir, for one who is not yet 30!

      But I'd like two remind you of 2 basic hacker tenets:
      • Conservation of energy. i.e. Laziness as a virtue, not a vice.
      • Computers are toys to be played with.

      Now, with that in mind I can think of some MUCH better uses of that $

    • The original one was an exploration of middle eastern myth and religion, set against the backdrop of a cold war gone horribly wrong.

      The new one does away with the exploration of mythology (almost- we still have the hunt for Earth and the Lords of Kobol- they might expand upon it more in the series than in the original) set against the backdrop of a fledgeling society turned terrorist against the older society (that is, instead of the US vs Soviet cold war being the backdrop, you have the US vs Saudi Arabia

  • Let's just hope (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 08, 2004 @01:45PM (#9914148)
    They don't find the ratings too low and revamp it into Galactica 2006. "Hey, look, we're on Earth now!"
  • They've been advertising this for months.

    The mini-series didn't suck anywhere near as much as I thought it would. It was actually pretty good. But then, considering how horrible the original series was, there was nowhere to go but up.

  • And a year from now... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anita Coney ( 648748 ) on Sunday August 08, 2004 @01:46PM (#9914160) Homepage
    I'll be cancelled.

    Yeah, this is flamebait, but that doesn't change its veracity.

  • Guest Star? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    If they mean this Richard Hatch

    http://www.cbs.com/primetime/survivor/survivors/ri chard.shtml [cbs.com]

    All I can say is... FRACK.

  • Nostalgia (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Moderation abuser ( 184013 ) on Sunday August 08, 2004 @01:50PM (#9914177)
    Am I the only one who finds the fact that nostalgia is driving the current Science Fiction series aired to be supremely ironic?

    • Re:Nostalgia (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Daemonik ( 171801 )

      Am I the only one who finds the fact that nostalgia is driving the current Science Fiction series aired to be supremely ironic?

      Considering that many of the sci-fi staples are either already here or have been discredited and that older series have a built in audience versus the financial risk of developing a new series that might not find an audience it doesn't surprise me in the least that many 'new' series are retreads of old shows.

      Also, unlike the audiences of the past who had an optimistic, childlike v

  • Richard Hatch? Oh no (Score:4, Funny)

    by bravehamster ( 44836 ) on Sunday August 08, 2004 @01:50PM (#9914181) Homepage Journal
    God, I hope he keeps his clothes on this time. And Olmos better watch out, or he'll find that everyone has voted him off the Galactica

    *yes I know it's a different Richard Hatch.

  • Richard Hatch? (Score:3, Funny)

    by PeterChenoweth ( 603694 ) on Sunday August 08, 2004 @01:56PM (#9914214)
    Oh thank god it's not the Survivor Richard Hatch. [richhatch.com]

    Terrible nightmares of naked homosexual Cylons hell-bent on manipulating the universe...

  • Bring back Mystery Science Theater 3000 ;)

  • Lost all interest.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by leathered ( 780018 ) on Sunday August 08, 2004 @01:56PM (#9914217)
    I loved BG as a child and I recently watched some re-runs for the first time since, all I can say is that the original series have not aged well, the whole thing looks cheesy and very early-80s. The scripting is laughable on occasions.

    Contrast this to when I saw repeats of Dr Who, Blake's 7 etc from the same era. They seemed to have aged very well like a good wine, and despite some very dubious sets and sfx they make you realise that it's the quality of writing that make shows like these a classic.
    • Ummm, sorry, BG was late 70s, specifically 1978-1979. Cancelled, then brought back as the incredibly awful Battlestar Galactica 1980.

      Some of us are still trepanning our skulls to try and erase the horrible horrible memories.

  • Old news... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Orne ( 144925 ) on Sunday August 08, 2004 @02:06PM (#9914272) Homepage
    They've been showing previews for it since the Stargate SG1/Atlantis season premier weekend... and pretty much every other hour of the day... can't miss it.

    Also of note:

    Farscape is coming back as Farscape: Peacekeeper Wars [scifi.com]. Old News [slashdot.org].

    New series based on Ursula K LeGuin's EarthSea [scifi.com] coming in December. Old News [slashdot.org].

    Firefly is coming back in movie form as Serenity [imdb.com] next summer. Old News [slashdot.org].

    SciFi channel is also contemplating a Larry Niven Ringworld [cinescape.com] miniseries. Old News [slashdot.org].

    And most likely, there's going to be another 8 or so Tremors spinoffs...

  • I was frankly surprised by a few events during the mini series, and I'm looking forward to the new season. However, now that they've shown us the 6 (ahem)chassis models, we know who the bad guys are. How many episodes can they go using that suspicion as a fundamental backdrop in the story line ... 3-5? Hopefully it won't turn into a lame attempt at a series ala Voyager, Deep Space 9, Enterprise.

    I'm hoping for something more like Babylon 5 but moving through space...

  • "Human Cylons" are a mistake... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Hanno ( 11981 ) on Sunday August 08, 2004 @02:08PM (#9914283) Homepage
    ...I saw the mini-series and yes, it was surprisingly good. I really really liked it. I liked that they avoided a lot of sci-fi cliches, except one.

    So let's face, the invention of human cylons is a big horrible mistake and one of the worst sci-fi cliches ever. Obviously, they wanted to save on the CGI-effects budget and wanted to avoid cheesy robot costumes. So they came up with human-looking cylons. The pilot movie made it clear that the following series will revolve around the question which of the Galactica crew members is actually a cylon, possibly without even knowing about it.

    But I see no suspense whatsoever from a plot point that was innovative in 1927's "Metropolis" but that has been worn off ever since: Is that person human or isn't it? Am I talking to the original or not? The idea of non-human enemies posing as humans to subvert the human forces has been done to death by every incarnation of Star Trek and practically almost every other sci-fi show ever made. I see no new idea coming from this. Too bad.

    I just wish they would have avoided that and come up with some non-cheesy robot cylons.

    • Re:"Human Cylons" are a mistake... (Score:5, Funny)

      by digitalhermit ( 113459 ) on Sunday August 08, 2004 @02:33PM (#9914402) Homepage
      Actually, I can imagine that no-name cylons would be cheaper -- no need to pay a recurring actor/actress since anyone can don a costume and continue... Plus I seem to recall that the identity of the Cylon infiltrators was already known... Unless the lookaline happens to have been the human from which they cloned the appearance...

      For my predictions:
      A cylon becomes a 7-of-9; that is, it integrates into human culture. There will be some episodes where it reverts back to its roots, but somehow, through sheer human (ha) will, overcomes its mechanical nature. A human crewmember falls in love with the Cylon.

      A Cylon and a human get trapped on a planet. They need to overcome their differences in order to survive. Someone insults Mickey Mouse. One says, "Picard in big chair, turning."

      A human infiltrates Cylon HQ by mimicking Capt. Kirk's robotic delivery: Jones....Jones.....Cannot....keep....straight....f ace..

      A crew member dies in an early episode but reappears in a later one as the son/daughter/doppelganger. Time travel may be involved. Or cloning. Or, egads, Cylons replicating. They'll call him Duncan. Duncan Idaho. Or Tasha if it's a she.

      A gay space pirate named Sonny Crockett appears. He seems to know the captain from way back... Rumors float and some light-hearted banter.

      • For my predictions:
        A cylon becomes a 7-of-9; that is, it integrates into human culture. There will be some episodes where it reverts back to its roots, but somehow, through sheer human (ha) will, overcomes its mechanical nature. A human crewmember falls in love with the Cylon.

        From what I have seen so far, that sort of happens....
      • There will be some episodes where it reverts back to its roots, but somehow, through sheer human (ha) will, overcomes its mechanical nature.

        That is the biggest hole in the plot. If you watched the pilot, you can see that Cylons, even human looking, are susceptible to a particular form of radiation that humans aren't, and you will also see that when Six is particularly excited, her spine glows. Another Cylon mentions that when his body dies, his memories will be uploaded to the Cylon network, so he must c
    • Disappointing? Yes. But it shouldn't come as a surprise. For some reason (bad) Sci Fi producers seem to like making the enemy have personality - someone you can talk to. Just look at the terrible things they did to the Borg in Star Trek : First Contact. The idea of having an enemy be just a force that's Out There(tm) and not interactive just doesn't occur to some people.
      • There are all kinds of antagonists to use.
        I believe the current crop of writers and producers just don't understand the protagonist/antagonist concept.

        Example:
        #1. Man, stranded in the snow, struggles to find shelter.
        -vs-
        #2. Man, stranded in the snow, struggles to find shelter from evil ice wizard's storm.

        There's a huge difference between the two.

        With the Borg, they were initially introduced as #1. They were impersonal.

        Then, with the addition of the Borg Queen, they became #2.

        "The idea of having an enem
    • I was also unimpressed with the human Cylons, especially since they look to be the dominant form of Cylon that we'll be seeing in the series. And why bother CG'ing them at all? Frankly, I wouldn't mind seeing the clunky old versions, even if they do look cheesy. It wouldn't be hard to update them a bit, and then they wouldn't look any worse than the stormtroopers in Star Wars. With the large number of scifi series out there competing for a relatively small market share, BG must have and should have been
    • I just wish they would have avoided that and come up with some non-cheesy robot cylons.

      There were non-cheezy robot cylons, we didn't get to see much of them though. Just a little at the beginning. Actually, from what I saw of them they look pretty freaking cool.

    • The pilot movie made it clear that the following series will revolve around the question which of the Galactica crew members is actually a cylon, possibly without even knowing about it.

      That would be Rick Deckard, right?

      • The sad thing is that anyone who watched that last 30 seconds of the miniseries already knows who it is.
        • The sad thing is that anyone who watched that last 30 seconds of the miniseries already knows who it is.

          That may not be fatal. Keeping the audience out of the loop is just one way to tell a story. That path often leads to disappointment as it's difficult to give clues without the risk that half the audience will figure it out too early, spoiling the suspense. Another story arc reveals the bad guy to the audience alone [Silence of the Lambs] so that we feel helpless watching the victim/sleuth wander int

  • Woohooooooooooooo!
  • But what about Farscape?

    [And what the fuck is this? I think /. people are taking themselves too seriously. Bad posting indeed!]

    Due to excessive bad posting from this IP or Subnet, anonymous comment posting has temporarily been disabled. You can still login to post. However, if bad posting continues from your IP or Subnet that privilege could be revoked as well. If it's you, consider this a chance to sit in the timeout corner or login and improve your posting . If it's someone else, this is a chance to hun
    • There *is* a new Farscape miniseries coming out, called "The Peacekeeper Wars".

      What, am I the ONLY one who watches Sci-Fi Network these days? They've been running ads for these shows for the last month or so.
      • I recently moved, and am now about 2 poles past the end of the TV cable. I haven't decided whether or not to get satellite (probably DirectTV if I do).

        Also, I can't get high speed Internet. How's Direcway?
  • This is news how? There shouldn't be a single geek out there that hasn't been aware of this for months now.
  • Asking once again, add the ability to meta moderate the people who post stories.

    It is just getting ridiculous. The reposts have gone from sad, to so sad it is funny, to so sad it is just... sad.
  • This is just wonderful. maybe now they can put some new material into the show. I mean is it just me or watching the same thing with better cg and starbuck as a girl. Of course i could be wrong and we could get the same old stuff. Who knows the kids beingg able to jump 10times higher than regular earthilings might make another appearance. Well heres to new material that wont suck.
  • Dammit! Screw Edward James Olmos and his pock-faced character. To hell with that lebian-ish looking chick that plays Starbuck, forever ruining the original series' mac daddy version of Starbuck (who later trolled the A-Team series). I don't care that the 2nd of two black guys from the original series has been turned into an Asian woman...that might actually be a humanoid Cylon fabricated for the sheer ease of reducing the CGI effects budget!

    WHAT ABOUT THE DAMNED TOYS?!

    I want my little Galactica starfig

  • Ponderosa in space (Score:3, Funny)

    by baomike ( 143457 ) on Sunday August 08, 2004 @02:57PM (#9914540)
    Do I really want more?
    Maybe the Cylons and Daleks can once and for always
    make space safe for inorganics.
  • As long as they don't stop StarGate.

  • I enjoyed the new BSG (Score:4, Insightful)

    by beldraen ( 94534 ) <chad...montplaisir@@@gmail...com> on Sunday August 08, 2004 @03:05PM (#9914582)
    Unfortunately, I think most people are just not going to "get it." I had a discussion with a friend who is the true "but this isn't like the original show, so it sucks!" The most fascinating thing about of this series is the fact that the Cyclons are now human. The pilot ended up with some great philosophical (for the Slashdot crowd, this won't work because it requires thinking about other positions than your own, I know..) ideas and plot points:

    -- Are the Cyclons more human that we are? Can they have all their emotions without being socially destructive? Or, are they less human because they are so reigned in? Do they have freewill? Can they have freewill and yet also be sleeper programmed?
    -- Is Baltar just psychologically unsound or did they plan a device in his head? We know that there are at least one other Cyclon on board, but I seriously suspect another. Are they the perpetrators or is Baltar unconsciously being controlled?
    -- How will Starbuck deal with having passed Zack? In theory, this should lead to her resignation, but we cannot afford to lose any valuable pilots.
    -- How with the X.O. handle his daemons now that his job isn't plush anymore?

    This series has a lot more drama to it, which is probably why the "old crowd" doesn't care for it. I can say that the people I know who weren't raised on the old show really like this one.
    • Hmm.. i just watched Red Planet, Mission to Mars, and Space Cowboys. AFAIK all of those movies were denounced here because of bad physics. I saw the movies, noticed the bad physics, grinned because I knew they made for a better story, and enjoyed the movies.

      Same goes for series re-runs. Don't theorize it to death, just sit and watch it. Grin at plotholes and physics violations. Just try to enjoy something for once instead of trying to debunk every small or big goof in it.

      Ok this has no bearing on the post

    • I liked it too, (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Infonaut ( 96956 )
      but for different reasons:

      * The sequence of events during and immediately following the Cylon attack was well-handled, IMHO. It had the feeling of a real event, where nobody knew quite what was going on and people who were not expected to be leaders had to step up and take responsibility.

      * The environment on Galactica, the crew reactions, and the overall tone of a fleet that had been on guard duty for years without seeing any combat, and was now engaged in combat felt right to me.

      * The "combat journal

  • Why doesn't Sci-Fi broadcast old Dr.Who reruns???? (Score:3, Informative)

    by zymano ( 581466 ) on Sunday August 08, 2004 @03:07PM (#9914588)
    It's about money .

    Dr Who and SciFi channel should be a perfect match.

  • Great... (Score:4, Funny)

    by payndz ( 589033 ) on Sunday August 08, 2004 @03:21PM (#9914652)
    ...now what about an update of Buck Rogers In The 25th Century?

    "Bidibidibidi, nice ass, Wilma!"

  • ive been seeing the damned commercials for months.. Wishing it was just a bad dream..

    Man it was a terrible 'mini-series'.. i had hoped that was the end of it..
  • That guy sucked on Survivor All Stars. I mean so what, he's big, he's gay, he's covered in hair, he bit a shark (ok that was kinda cool). Oh wait...... the OTHER Richard Hatch, gotcha.
    • Hate to be a sig pedant, but you're missing an "if" in there. The actual quote is:

      `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'

      Oh, and Carroll has 2 "l"s!

  • with the same cast and more Cylon goodness

    You misspelled "goddesses". I agree, we need more of those hot, kissing ambassador models.

  • Remake after remake after remake... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SoLO ( 91992 ) on Sunday August 08, 2004 @07:38PM (#9916188)
    Stargate SG1: Spinoff of a pretty good movie
    Stargate Atlantis: Spinoff of a spinoff
    BS: Galactica: Remake
    Andromeda (LBX): Bought from syndication
    Scare Tactics: science FICTION channel REALITY series.

    They have a couple other "original" series that I have not seen so I do not feel comfortable talking about. Good for them that there seem to still be a few original shows. See here for their seriously weakened lineup when compared to a few years ago: http://www.scifi.com/onair/shows/ [scifi.com]

    Apparently original ideas are no longer acceptable on SciFi channel. ;)

    Why else cancel the amazing show that is Farscape? Farscape takes science fiction to a new level, and a lot of people are picking up on it after the huge fan response to the cancellation.

    (Okay actually SciFi didn't "approve" of Farscape because they didn't own it top to bottom. The Farscape game, the little action figures, everything, was under Henson's control. Under the surface the Farscape cancellation is about media consolidation; SciFi Channel doesn't like what they can't own completely.) See this Ted Turner article about this general trend in the industry: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/040 7.turner.html [washingtonmonthly.com]

    A lot of people still haven't seen Farscape, so I invite you to watch it Monday through Friday, 9AM-4PM, from Friday, Oct. 1, through Friday, Oct. 15. SciFi channel is airing all 4 seasons so people can catch up.

    I beg of you; spread the word about this amazing show.

    p.s. I do not wish to offend on Stargate fans or Andromeda fans. Im just extremely passionate about Farscape, I hope you will not be turned off by my enthusiasm.

  • Will Galactica Survive another Resurrection? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by CodeBuster ( 516420 ) on Monday August 09, 2004 @12:10AM (#9917635)
    I say this with some sorrow, because I enjoyed the original series when I was in grade school, but Galactica has suffered a number of indignities over the years and between rewriting, editing, and corporations that were more concerned about cashing in on the nostalgia than producing a good quality science fiction series the series has lost much of its luster for me. Now, to be fair to the Sci-Fi channel and some of the original cast members the recent miniseries was a good intentioned attempt to recapture some of what made the Galactica concept so compelling. However, Galactica has always, even during the original run, suffered from lack of budget. The original series for example, cost $1,000,000 per episode in 1978 and it was cancelled even though it was the number one show that year. The hard truth is that advertisers, even if your show is number one in ratings, will only pay so much for a 30 second commercial spot. Thus, in order to make the show profitable there have always been compromises. I really wanted to like the new miniseries...I really did. I watched it in its entirety, even though I winced at some of acting and most of the dialog. Perhaps the series will prove me wrong...I hope so...but I am not getting my hopes up.
    • However, Galactica has always, even during the original run, suffered from lack of budget. The original series for example, cost $1,000,000 per episode in 1978 and it was cancelled even though it was the number one show that year.

      What alternate universe are you in? First, which is it - BSG suffered from low budget, or had $1 million/episode? A million dllars was a LOT of money in 1978. I was around in 1978 and there was NO WAY Battlestar Gallactica was the number one TV show. It was a low-rated dog th

Slashdot Top Deals

"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."

Close