Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Science Channel Buys Rights To Firefly

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the welcome-back dept.

Sci-Fi 380

citking writes "The Science Channel has purchased the rights to Firefly and plans to air all episodes in order and in high definition. In addition, physicist Dr. Michio Kaku will appear to explain the theoretical science behind the show's sci-fi concepts. There's a brief interview in the article as well with Nathan Fillion, who chimes in with his thoughts on Firefly and playing Mal."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

This is important? (3, Insightful)

redemtionboy (890616) | more than 3 years ago | (#35263532)

Since when is it news that a second rate basic cable channel gets the rights to air a show? Call be when they buy the rights to make new episodes.

Re:This is important? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35263606)

Since when is it news that a second rate basic cable channel gets the rights to air a show? Call be when they buy the rights to make new episodes.

since Firefly is the best show of ALL TIME!!

Re:This is important? (4, Insightful)

Asmor (775910) | more than 3 years ago | (#35263760)

Since when is it news that a second rate basic cable channel gets the rights to air a show? Call be when they buy the rights to make new episodes.

since Firefly is

[snip]

I'mma let you finish... but I just wanna say... Stargate is the best show of all time!

Re:This is important? (5, Insightful)

u17 (1730558) | more than 3 years ago | (#35263956)

I'mma let you finish... but I just wanna say... Stargate is the best show of all time!

Oh, come on, mods, do you think it responsible to mod up flamebait comments like this as insightful?

Besides, I thought everyone knew that Babylon 5 is the best show of all time.

Re:This is important? (2, Insightful)

X3J11 (791922) | more than 3 years ago | (#35264002)

Oh, come on, mods, do you think it responsible to mod up flamebait comments like this as insightful?

Besides, I thought everyone knew that Babylon 5 is the best show of all time.

I'm sorry, but you are both mistaken. Farscape was far superior to both.

Re:This is important? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35264112)

You all suck

Re:This is important? (2, Insightful)

ooshna (1654125) | more than 3 years ago | (#35264114)

Besides, I thought everyone knew that Babylon 5 is the best show of all time.

I'm sorry, but you are both mistaken. Farscape was far superior to both.

You are all wrong it was Lexx that was the best.

Re:This is important? (5, Funny)

trappa (1894960) | more than 3 years ago | (#35264130)

I'm not sure what universe you're in, but in this universe Sliders was the best.

Re:This is important? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35264190)

Get a grip. Nothing has ever come close to Mork and Mindy.

Re:This is important? (1)

Kortalh (1102177) | more than 3 years ago | (#35264286)

Au contraire, A.L.F. took the basic formula of Mork & Mindy and improved it several times over.

Re:This is important (1)

Robin47 (1379745) | more than 3 years ago | (#35264220)

Battlestar Galactica

Re:This is important? (1, Insightful)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 3 years ago | (#35264254)

Oh come on mods, show a little professionalism for once.

Stargate gets Insightful and Babylon 5 gets Flamebait??? I don't care what show you like, their is nothing in this comment that deserves a modding down.

And Babylon 5 is the best show of all time.

Re:This is important? (2)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 3 years ago | (#35264248)

Yeah, dammit. Seeing SGU canceled was like watching Firefly die all over again. :(

Re:This is important? (1)

Xer0ss (1136189) | more than 3 years ago | (#35264124)

I couldn't agree more! However new episodes would be nice.

Re:This is important? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35263618)

Since 98% of slashdotters love it with a fanatic cult like adoration. Now be careful getting down off that high horse.

Re:This is important? (1)

sirambrose (919153) | more than 3 years ago | (#35263620)

Unfortunately, I don't think that will happen after the movie wrapped up the story line and killed off major characters.

Re:This is important? (3, Interesting)

Scutter (18425) | more than 3 years ago | (#35263646)

Unfortunately, I don't think that will happen after the movie wrapped up the story line and killed off major characters.

I'm prepared to pretend the movie never happened if it mean more episodes. Who's with me?!

Re:This is important? (5, Funny)

jamesh (87723) | more than 3 years ago | (#35263784)

Unfortunately, I don't think that will happen after the movie wrapped up the story line and killed off major characters.

I'm prepared to pretend the movie never happened if it mean more episodes. Who's with me?!

What movie?

Re:This is important? (2, Funny)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35264330)

The one where they killed off all the main characters, don't you keep up with things?

Re:This is important? (5, Insightful)

Schadrach (1042952) | more than 3 years ago | (#35263916)

Or more reasonably, that any new episodes would fit between the two, since it's implied that a lot of time passed between the series and the movie.

Re:This is important? (0)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 3 years ago | (#35264120)

Or more reasonably, that any new episodes would fit between the two, since it's implied that a lot of time passed between the series and the movie.

Ummm, why do I feel like I am going insane here!

The time line of the movie started BEFORE the series, and finished AFTER the series. The movie goes through Simon rescuing River, in the series they merely got ON THE SHIP (either way, that was the first time they were onboard Firefly). Therefore there is utterly no reason why any other seasons of the series couldn't fit in like the original season - basically inside the timeline of the movie.

Re:This is important? (1)

stonedcat (80201) | more than 3 years ago | (#35264310)

No reason? What about the age of the actors?
You can dress them up however you like but it's been almost 10 years since the show aired.
The change is still going to be noticeable especially for the younger members of the cast.
Sorry, but if Firefly were to ever return it would have to take place after Serenity.

Re:This is important? (1)

Warshadow (132109) | more than 3 years ago | (#35264356)

No it didn't. The timeline starts after the series. It seems likely that River was caught at some point after Objects in Space and the beginning of Serenity shows them rescuing her.

Re:This is important? (1)

zaivala (887815) | more than 3 years ago | (#35264334)

There is still plenty of stuff that can be done with the cast members who are left, and add new ones. I note that most of the actors have done rather well with jobs in TV. So we'd get Nathan Fillion back, but what about the others? (Gina Torres, yum!)

Re:This is important? (4, Insightful)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 3 years ago | (#35263940)

Unfortunately, I don't think that will happen after the movie wrapped up the story line and killed off major characters.

I'm prepared to pretend the movie never happened if it mean more episodes. Who's with me?!

As much as I loved the series I'm awfully tempted to say let sleeping dogs lie. That one season's worth is a work of art

Re:This is important? (2)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#35264094)

I liked the movie. It was well done; it explained the backstory to non-fans in a seamless way and the plot was well written. It actually extended the series by revealing the true origin of the Reavers. Do I wish that some of the characters were not killed? Yes. If for some miracle that Firefly is ever resurrected, they can create new characters.

Re:This is important? (2)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 3 years ago | (#35264216)

or soldier on with out them.

I mean, death and loss are a part of story telling. Particularly when it's supposed to be a Western but in Space.

Re:This is important? (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 3 years ago | (#35264316)

Unfortunately, I don't think that will happen after the movie wrapped up the story line and killed off major characters.

I'm prepared to pretend the movie never happened if it mean more episodes. Who's with me?!

I really didn't like the way the movie tried to rush a wrap-up of all the story lines. Some of them might have proven interesting.

Re:This is important? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35263670)

Wash didn't necessarily die.... he just got a giant spear-like thing through his chest! It would be a stretch to bring him back, but hey! I'll take it. And as for the shepherd, I'm sure they can actually use his death to further the plot. Remember, he had some weird Alliance hookups.

Re:This is important? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35263740)

Wash was literally dead on impact. Sudden massive trauma kind of tends to do that.

Re:This is important? (2)

brokeninside (34168) | more than 3 years ago | (#35263936)

I think the scene with his grieving widow in front of a tombstone with his name on it suggest that Wash did actually die.

Re:This is important? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35263676)

Two words: Prequel episodes

Re:This is important? (5, Funny)

Leuf (918654) | more than 3 years ago | (#35263718)

There were characters other than Kaylee?

Re:This is important? (5, Funny)

Psion (2244) | more than 3 years ago | (#35263864)

I'll be in mah bunk.

Re:This is important? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35263888)

"There were characters other than Kaylee and River?

Fixed that for you.

Re:This is important? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35263898)

Don't forget Inara!

Re:This is important? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35264016)

Don't forget Inara!

She is a fine piece, always.

Re:This is important? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35263746)

Not to mention that the movie technically "bombed". Perhaps with DVD sales and such included they made a bit of a profit... but it's a damn shame that all the vocal "WHAAA! Bring back Firefly or at least make a movie!" didn't result in a proportionally large turnup for the movie in theaters.

It's one of the few viewer-coordinated "Bring Back X" campaigns that was moderately successful in terms of the action itself, and it still bombed.

Nobody in their right mind would try bringing a series back again (as a series or a full-on theatrical release - direct-to-DVD might still work, though StarGate's were only marginally a financial success) unless they can cut the budget substantially.

Much cheaper, and more profitable, to put WWE or 'Ghost Hunters' or some manner of reality TV show on your network.

Re:This is important? (1)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 3 years ago | (#35263796)

I still don't see the appeal to Ghost Hunters.

The series starts off with them actually debunking everywhere they go. Of course the series is boring because it amounts to a little history lesson about a place and then a bunch of walking around in the dark.

So they change the series up, now suddenly everyone really believes there's ghosts everywhere, lots of spooky noises that always seem to catch the crew off guard. Lots of places are now "possibly haunted".

Still don't see the appeal even after they dressed it up and made it utterly fake.

Re:This is important? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35264346)

Is your IQ above that of damp socks? Then you aren't the target demographic.

Re:This is important? (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 3 years ago | (#35264058)

maybe it bombed because the fans all downloaded it and hence didn't go to the cinema?

just sayin' :)

Re:This is important? (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#35264140)

maybe it bombed because the fans all downloaded it and hence didn't go to the cinema?

I tried to go to the theater for Serenity, but couldn't go the first week due to obligations (can't remember what now). It was gone by the next week. I've never seen a film taken out that quickly, even complete stinkers. I suspect film sabotage.

Re:This is important? (1)

lazybeam (162300) | more than 3 years ago | (#35264276)

Me and a group of friends drove over 120km (each way) to go to a pre-screening of Serenity: we saw it at the cinema and didn't download it! The showing had completely sold out. But then I guess that would have been ALL the fans in the area, leaving none for the actual run...

Re:This is important? (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#35264064)

Nobody in their right mind would try bringing a series back again

What, like Family Guy? A return to TV so successful that a spinoff was created? A Firefly/Serenity return would be less successful, but successful nonetheless. I have a lot of geek friends (including one that hates sci-fi), that love Firefly enough to buy the DVDs.

Re:This is important? (5, Insightful)

Necroman (61604) | more than 3 years ago | (#35263798)

Wrapped up? Joss Whedon loves to kill off main characters. He probably would have killed off at least 1 of those people if he had a second season.

Re:This is important? (1)

lilomar (1072448) | more than 3 years ago | (#35263906)

um, there is a gap between the final episode and the movie, plenty of room for a season or two :)

Re:This is important? (1)

grahamd0 (1129971) | more than 3 years ago | (#35264282)

I don't think it would work. I doubt that Summer Glau, while a she is right purdy lady, can pull off 17 anymore.

Now, I would love them to do another season or two, I just don't think a timeline that involves Wash and Book would work.

Re:This is important? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35264344)

Eh, just throw them through some sort of space/time anomaly, I'm sure that will fix the plot holes necessary to make it worik.

Re:This is important? (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 3 years ago | (#35263952)

Unfortunately, I don't think that will happen after the movie wrapped up the story line and killed off major characters.

Not to mention that the lead actor is already committed to a different series that's on a different network.

Re:This is important? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35263996)

You didn't read the interview, did you?

Re:This is important? (2)

retchdog (1319261) | more than 3 years ago | (#35264012)

You mean "a major character," that being Shepherd Book.

But seriously, it'd be a bit challenging to keep things going. River is now a fully-capable uber-assassin and psychic, which would make continuing petty heists kind of unbelievable after a while; not to mention that she could almost replace the entire crew, from Jayne to Kaylee, single-handed. Either she and Simon would leave (which is kind of unsatisfying) or the crew would go full-out revolutionary (which could very easily come off cheesy).

Still, the worst bar would be that the original cast had an incredibly strong chemistry. It's very unlikely to repeat that, esp. in a lower-budget cable show.

Re:This is important? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35264290)

Uh, did you forget Wash?

Re:This is important? (1)

dAzED1 (33635) | more than 3 years ago | (#35264056)

did you watch the same movie as me? It already deviated pretty hard from the show. I preferred to think of it as the same characters (with one exception - shepherd got changed a lot) in a completely different timeline.

Re:This is important? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35263682)

Yea, me too... That was a cool series. The "Space Western" was right on...

Michio Kaku (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35263690)

...The man who happily becomes a sellout when he finds his life work slowly being proven wrong.

Re:Michio Kaku (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#35263856)

...The man who happily becomes a sellout

Seriously, Kaku just doesn't seem to understand that sometimes it's better not to take every single offer from the Media.

The only physicists who were more overexposed than Michio Kaku died as Los Alamos.

Re:This is important? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35263714)

The cast and writers have moved on, become older, etc... new episodes would probably ruin the name of Firefly.

And IMO it doesn't matter what channel it appears on. I think many people who enjoyed Firefly found everything else on TV to be banal crap. Those people probably canceled their TV plans some time ago.

Re:This is important? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35263766)

The Science Channel now has more 'good' science fiction than Sy Fy

Re:This is important? (4, Informative)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 3 years ago | (#35263768)

Call be when they buy the rights to make new episodes.

Well, that's Plan B [helpnathanbuyfirefly.com] .

Re:This is important? (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 3 years ago | (#35264180)

That is the downright shiniest website I have seen all week! I think I have found a new hobby to put effort and time into!

Re:This is important? (2)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 3 years ago | (#35263770)

I have to question what you consider a "first rate" channel. The Science Channel is one of the only channels with anything even remotely interesting on television.

Re:This is important? (1)

rsmith-mac (639075) | more than 3 years ago | (#35263846)

When they have enough importance that they're not channel 305, and when advertisers revere them enough to put on ads beyond electric nicotine inhalers and not-from-the-US-mint "collectible" money.

Re:This is important? (2)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 3 years ago | (#35264020)

Do you actually think channel numbers are ranked by order of importance? Channel 1 is the best or even one of the best channels? Or even that channels have the same numbers across networks/the country? (It's not even near 305 where I live)

Re:This is important? (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#35264152)

I guess the poster means that typically the single digit channels are local. For most cable systems, the next 90 or so are holdovers from analog days and are more popular like ESPN, CNN, etc. After that you get to the extended channels that don't as much viewership. For HD, a lot of the popular channels are no longer in the first block but there are still many people who don't get HD cable. They don't have the equipment (like a typical senior citizen) or they don't want to pay the extra.

Re:This is important? (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 3 years ago | (#35264068)

because advertising dollars determine what i choose to watch, too.

perhaps if geeknet had a budget they'd start spamming the science channel with TVCs?

Re:This is important? (2)

citizenr (871508) | more than 3 years ago | (#35264074)

When they have enough importance that they're not channel 305, and when advertisers

Its called Education. WTF, doesnt US fund educational TV channels like the rest of civilized world?

Re:This is important? (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 3 years ago | (#35264086)

That's funny, because out here (Portland, Oregon) all the premium movie channels are high-numbered, while all the crap (including such gems as QVC or one of its clones) hangs out around the low-numbered local channels. The pr0n channels sit way up there in the 800's-900's, next to the freebie music channels.

(Besides, Comcast has The Science Channel at 272 here, if that helps you out any).

Re:This is important? (4, Interesting)

westlake (615356) | more than 3 years ago | (#35263842)

Since when is it news that a second rate basic cable channel gets the rights to air a show?

The Science Channel is a Discovery network.

Market penetration, 100 million households for Discovery Channel, 50-70 million households for each of its second-tier networks. Discovery Networks U.S. [wikipedia.org]

Discovery tends to stay on target. True crime on I.D. Animals on Animal Planet. No pro wrestling to pump up the male demographic. I'm looking at you, SyFy.

You could do much worse if you were looking for a new home for "Firefly."

Mod that ^^ Mofo up, please! (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 3 years ago | (#35263942)

Seriously, I couldn't agree more. Science Channel did wander a bit off the reservation with the whole 'Punkin Chunkin' thing, but otherwise they tend to stay pretty much within the realm of science-related bits.

I'm kind of hoping they could cough up a weekly/daily topical news show (err, again?), and a little Science Fiction would do the place wonders, IMHO.

Re: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35264296)

Hey now, Pumpkin Chunkin is pretty cool stuff....

NOOOOOO, KAKU!! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35263546)

Leave Firefly alone, you attention whore!

I can't watch half of the Science channel programs because I'm sit of seeing him spew bullshit on camera.

Reavers Ahoy.... (1)

rajeevrk (1278022) | more than 3 years ago | (#35263564)

Seriously, i think i'm mostly interested in finally seeing in detail what those "skyscraper" class capital ships are like :) That show focussed waay too much on the single firefly class ship. Or maybe that was it's charm.....

My turn.....

Re:Reavers Ahoy.... (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 3 years ago | (#35263752)

Hell, I'd be happy with seeing an episode or two showing what it's like from the Alliance POV...

and plans to air all episodes IN ORDER (4, Informative)

v1 (525388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35263648)

what a novel idea!

the whole first attempt at airing this was a textbook trainwreck, and the result was blamed on the show's merit.

Good news, Everyone! (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 3 years ago | (#35263744)

(yeah, so I ripped off a different show for that title, but...)

Maybe this will (I hope?) mean that the Science Channel picks up some actual Hard Sci-Fi (as in "science", kids, not "horror") shows, perhaps expanding on them?

Doesn't necessarily have to mean making new Firefly episodes (though it would be damned cool if they did that too). Just making new shows that don't suck will suffice.

They can play 'em on one or more nights of the week, and have documentaries (and yeah, even An Idiot Abroad, semi-sucky as I consider it to be) during the rest of the time.

What the hell is the science channel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35263758)

Is that one of those channels i would need the super extended extra ultimate awesome digital widescreen everything and the kitchen sink package from the cable company for?

I USED to get two channels i considered science channels...
The history channel and the learning channel... But now they're the hitler/aliens/jesusfreak channel and the watch average people do a regular job channel.

Re:What the hell is the science channel? (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 3 years ago | (#35263968)

Actually, most cablecos do it with a moderate package deal (e.g. Comcast does it as part of their 2nd-tier up from basic cable). Out here in PDX, we get it on channel 272, nestled in w/ NatGeo, History International, Military, and (for some odd reason) that distracting celebrity-crap channel A&E stuck in there somewhere...

As far as the general crap on TV goes, that particular grouping of channels makes for a relatively sane place to hang out.

...the science? (2)

straponego (521991) | more than 3 years ago | (#35263816)

Okay, yay Firefly and all that. But the science? I'll be very interested to hear how interplanetary travel, which takes a matter of days, almost invariably results in passing within a couple hundred feet of another ship headed the opposite direction at a few feet per second relative velocity. ...very small solar system? With a couple hundred planets?

Re:...the science? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35263882)

Maybe it's like the flight paths between our major airports? Airplanes don't go wherever they want.

Re:...the science? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35263922)

1) Nothing begets nothing. If there is nothing of interest at a particular point, that point won't garner any interest, and people won't be hanging around that point.

2) A straight line is the shortest distance between two points. If you want to get from A to B ... and everyone else wants to get from B to A ...

Extrapolating, points of interest become very crowded, and so do popular shipping lanes :D

Besides the above point, who'd watch a show where they spend 36hs playing cards, showering (actually I rather like the showering idea), wasting time, while they wait for the ship to get somewhere ...

On your holidays, do you take happy snaps of boring travel time, or the fantastic events when you get where you are going?

Re:...the science? (1)

Kell Bengal (711123) | more than 3 years ago | (#35264122)

Let me draw on another cancelled-before-its-time-then-revived-by-a-fan-campaign-only-to-vanish-into-obscurity sci fi show: Farscape. One of the most memorable moments of the series was when, after a close-call escaping the bad guys, the crew seek solitude from each other to consider what has happened. One works on his space plane, another meditates, another sharpens his sword, another does a grueling workout. We see those characters engaged in their everyday life, away from the action. It made you think of them as people, not just as card-board cutout action heros.

I would gladly watch a Firefly episode where the characters made dinner, maintained the engines, checked the navigation computer, and whatnot, and simply let the personality dynamics carry the interest of the viewer. When you have sufficiently engaging characters, you don't need things blowing up every 5 minutes to produce compelling television.

Re:...the science? (1)

sootman (158191) | more than 3 years ago | (#35264244)

Actually, what they should do is follow the lead of sites like this [intuitor.com] and this [badastronomy.com] and teach science by explaining everything that the show gets wrong. They'd never run out of material if they did that.

As for your example about ships passing each other while going from Point A to Point B: space travel isn't like a transatlantic cruise. To get to where you want to be, you need to head for where the planet is going. To pick a simple (and simplified) example, consider two ships flying from Earth to Mars and vice-versa. Imagine you plan your trip for a time when the planets are both pretty close together. Since they both go around the Sun in the same direction, let's simplify and pretend they're on parallel tracks heading in the same direction, like two cars driving down the road next to each other. As you know, it is a multi-month trip, and if both ships leave on the same day, they will have to fly at an angle to reach where their destination will be in a couple months. So their paths would not be two parallel lines--they would actually form an X. (And that's before you factor in elliptical orbits, varying orbital planes, etc., to say nothing of relativity and how really effing big space is.)

In other words, imagine firing a gun in Los Angeles towards Maine at the same time someone in Miami sends a bullet towards Seattle. Calculate the odds of them hitting in mid-air. :-)

Re:...the science? (1)

SloppySevenths (1592383) | more than 3 years ago | (#35264102)

I'd like to hear the science of Inara's profession explained by Michio.

Re:...the science? (1)

jbeaupre (752124) | more than 3 years ago | (#35264158)

The short answer is because an entire season of watching people stare out the window, as they spend months a million miles from anything of interest, doesn't get very good ratings.

Re:...the science? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35264194)

I think that's the point. To have a regular feature where a physicist tries to explain the science behind a show whose "science" is purely plot convenience is not very useful. I'm sure Michio will find some BS to spew though, it's become his specialty.

Re:...the science? (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 3 years ago | (#35264350)

I'll be very interested to hear how interplanetary travel, which takes a matter of days, almost invariably results in passing within a couple hundred feet of another ship headed the opposite direction at a few feet per second relative velocity. ...very small solar system? With a couple hundred planets?

The short answer is because an entire season of watching people stare out the window, as they spend months a million miles from anything of interest, doesn't get very good ratings.

Yeah, but think of the dramatic potential for when they go insane and start trying to murder each other.

Re:...the science? (1)

ISoldat53 (977164) | more than 3 years ago | (#35264358)

Hence the demise of Stargate Universe.

Yay (1)

Fysx (1992304) | more than 3 years ago | (#35263862)

About time! Let's hope they don't botch it now.

Oh whoopie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35263874)

Great, More garbage sci fi on a channel that should have real scientific programming.

SyFy will STILL screw it up (0)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 3 years ago | (#35263892)

Seriously, SyFy has been turned into a joke by the ppl that run it now.

Different channel, eh? (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 3 years ago | (#35263998)

SyFy (*puke*) is a whole different channel. The Science Channel [http] is part of the Discovery channel ecosystem (not perfect, I know, but still better than SyFy...)

Ouch (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 3 years ago | (#35264234)

I missed that entirely. Thanx.

Have to say that Comcast absolutely sux, since we do not get science with them. I am looking to change out to Dish and pick that up.

Science Channel? (1)

reboot246 (623534) | more than 3 years ago | (#35263896)

Oh, you mean the "How It's Made" channel!!!
Or maybe it's the "Technology Channel".

Yeah, I know it. So now it gets even further off track with sci-fi?
What's next? Wrestling and reality shows?

Re:Science Channel? (4, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 3 years ago | (#35264008)

To be fair, engineering *is* a science...

they should buy the rights to SGA, SG1 and SGU and (3, Insightful)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#35263988)

they should buy the rights to SGA, SG1 and SGU and make SGA S6 and SGU S3!

Re:they should buy the rights to SGA, SG1 and SGU (1)

muphin (842524) | more than 3 years ago | (#35264236)

why? because SGA and SG1 have hundreds of episodes, SGU died as it didnt follow the SG mantra.
Firefly on the other hand had SG1 potential but was cut short due to incompetency, with only 10 episodes (i think) it had gotten a huge following, with a movie aswell... this plainly shows there is a HUGE demand for it, buying the rights to this show would be a winner, just get in there before someone makes a try hard copy and ruins it for everyone.

Re:they should buy the rights to SGA, SG1 and SGU (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 3 years ago | (#35264336)

it had gotten a huge following, with a movie aswell... this plainly shows there is a HUGE demand for it,

If you ignore the fact that the movie bombed...

Re:they should buy the rights to SGA, SG1 and SGU (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35264302)

Actually, MGM holds the rights to the StarGate franchise - buying those would really gain a network very little (a bit of control) while they could lose a lot (existing connections). What they'd have to do is send MGM money to actually produce StarGate content.

But with Brad Wright having gone off the deep-end a bit (maybe it was some nervous breakdown thing, I dunno) and the majority of StarGate-franchise fans feeling not-too-sad about the SG:U cancellation over on SyFy, I'm not sure which network would want to pick up on that show.
SG:A is now so long ago that it'd be difficult to continue its story (its ending was fine as it is anyway.. sometimes trying to tie up loose ends just results in a lesser ending.. I'm looking at you, Space: Above and Beyond.. you should have ended with the episode where the major protagonists got stuck on a planet). I'm not sure how SG:A could be revived with a new setting either, though. It basically had the Wraith and the Pseudonazis as proper story arcs, and both have been reasonably dealt with. Pulling another Ori-are-the-new-Goa'uld would be difficult in that setting.

Personally, as far as StarGate goes, I'd much rather see SG:U wrapped up with the funds that would otherwise go to another SG-1 DVD / an SG:A DVD, and then call it quits as far as video bits go.

There's also a computer game that needs finishing, if I recall correctly - I'd buy it.

Some merchandise wouldn't be so bad either. Can pretty much buy every ship model in Star Trek lore, including every single runabout, as a model ship.. can't find any decent models of SG ships on the level of the F-302 that ThinkGeek used to sell, while I'd love to build several of them (don't have the skills - or rather, patience - to design them from scratch, myself).

Why is this news? (1)

LoudNoiseElitist (1016584) | more than 3 years ago | (#35264110)

They've been running commercials for over a week now. I'm assuming they bought the rights a while back.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?