Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Syfy Reality Show Will Feature Giant Boxing Robots

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the more-like-skynet-training-league dept.

Robotics 82

An anonymous reader writes "It looks like the next generation of 'Battle Bots' is here: 'Syfy has greenlit and shot the first season of a new show where eight-foot-tall state-of-the-art humanoid robots will rock 'em and sock 'em in a boxing cage until one is defeated. The future-shock new series is called Robot Combat League and the project has been kept under wraps until today. The action resembles a real-life version of last year's hit movie Real Steel, with large menacing robots pounding away at each other in a satisfying shower of sparks and gushing hydraulic fluid.' Pictures are included with the story."

cancel ×

82 comments

Yes, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42049305)

How will wrestling be involved? Will season 2 feature wrestling robots?

Re:Yes, but... (5, Insightful)

TWX (665546) | about a year and a half ago | (#42049617)

Heh. More like they'll turn it into a reality show where there's 38 minutes of annoying hosts, watching the teams struggle with the design and construction of their bots, yelling at each other, making the token girl on the team cry, trash-talking about their opponents, and fighting at the last minute with control system problems, followed by about three minutes of actual robots in the ring, one minute of actual robot-on-robot attack.

Oh, and nineteen minutes of commercials.

So, in other words, that motorcycle-building show with some intentional, rather than all accidental, occasional mechanical carnage.

Re:Yes, but... (1)

Nyder (754090) | about a year and a half ago | (#42049887)

Heh. More like they'll turn it into a reality show where there's 38 minutes of annoying hosts,...

They got the annoying host, Chris Jericho.

He plays (played?) a whiney annoying bitch of a wrestler in the WWE universe, though he hasn't been around much lately. He of course, could be a stand up guy a very nice in RL, but I'm not holding my breath for that...

He also is in a band that doesn't make much waves, Fozzy. They might be good, but as stated above, he plays such a whiney bitch of a wrestler, I've never bothered to listen to them.

But none the less I will check it out. I mean, big ass robots beating each other up? Sounds fun.

Re:Yes, but... (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | about a year and a half ago | (#42052047)

Heh. More like they'll turn it into a reality show where there's 38 minutes of annoying hosts,...

They got the annoying host, Chris Jericho.

He plays (played?) a whiney annoying bitch of a wrestler in the WWE universe, though he hasn't been around much lately. He of course, could be a stand up guy a very nice in RL, but I'm not holding my breath for that...

He also is in a band that doesn't make much waves, Fozzy. They might be good, but as stated above, he plays such a whiney bitch of a wrestler, I've never bothered to listen to them.

But none the less I will check it out. I mean, big ass robots beating each other up? Sounds fun.

Will there be any fake robots.

Re:Yes, but... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42050185)

It will be at least 22 minutes of commercials, and you forgot the recaps after each commercial break of what just happened. This leaves five minutes of actual content per episode, just like MythBusters.

Re:Yes, but... (1)

TWX (665546) | about a year and a half ago | (#42050365)

It's been awhile since I've watched Mythbusters, but I remember a fairly small amount of actual strife between people, much more humor and mirth than bitchiness. Yes, too little experimentation, but it didn't normally turn nasty between the cast.

What I envision for this 'bot show is much more reality-TV, meaner and eating-one's-own since it's a competition, and most competition shows are much more about the mellodrama than the talent that led to a competition in the first place.

Re:Yes, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42050257)

With any hope it'll be like Battle Bots, just a little announcing then several bots compete in tournament.
But like you said, it's prolly gonna be "Teh Bots!" and its gonna be all about people spending money to text in a vote for who won.

Re:Yes, but... (1)

Delarth799 (1839672) | about a year and a half ago | (#42050913)

Well of that 38 minute of annoying host talk at least 20 minutes are spent discussing the search for ghosts or big foot.

and.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42051533)

it's a waste of natural resources..

Re:Yes, but... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42052523)

Heh. More like they'll turn it into a reality show where there's 38 minutes of annoying hosts, watching the teams struggle with the design and construction of their bots, yelling at each other, making the token girl on the team cry.

Except they don't design and build their own bots...and one of the token girls is George Lucas's daughter, who is apparently an accomplished MMA fighter and will be controlling her teams robot.

Sorry, I RTFA...well, skimmed it.....

Captcha = clanged

Re:Yes, but... (1)

helix2301 (1105613) | about a year and a half ago | (#42058593)

WWE Chris Jericho will host the show he rocks.

Re:Yes, but... (1)

emag (4640) | about a year and a half ago | (#42049743)

It'll need more ghosts in it too, and people screaming in the dark.

Re:Yes, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42050101)

What about a robots vs WWE crossover? Bonus points if the robots get to use weapons.

Re:Yes, but... (2)

dpidcoe (2606549) | about a year and a half ago | (#42050221)

Obligatory XKCD: http://what-if.xkcd.com/5/ [xkcd.com]

Re:Yes, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42050287)

Fine, we'll do it the old fashioned way and bring back Roman gladiator combat.

Robots? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42049323)

But are they robots this time or just remote control vehicles?

Re:Robots? (1, Insightful)

Larryish (1215510) | about a year and a half ago | (#42050085)

You beat me to it.

An RC car with a demo saw mounted on top is still a fucking RC car.

Robot = autonomous.

Anybody who thinks Battle Bots involved "robots" is a tool.

Re:Robots? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42050343)

Umm no, autonomous robots are that. Remote controlled robots exist too. As do pre-programmed but no AI bots.

Seriously you are splitting hairs, this is about robots capable of fighting, not robots capable of deciding whether they should fight eachother or against us!

Re:Robots? (1)

fgb (62123) | about a year and a half ago | (#42053561)

Yes, of course, they are all robots.

The point is that, until the robots are making their own moment-by-moment tactical decisions, it's just not that interesting to watch.

Re:Robots? (1)

Seumas (6865) | about a year and a half ago | (#42053901)

As per the dictionary: ROBOT -- A machine capable of carrying out a complex series of actions AUTOMATICALLY.

Direct like to the video (4, Funny)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a year and a half ago | (#42049325)

Fuck SyFy (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42049335)

That shit's for faggots. Dick smoking faggots. Rump roasting faggots.

Re:Fuck SyFy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42049713)

So....right up your alley then?

Re:Fuck SyFy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42049957)

...was that a proposal?

I know this is supposed to be cool... (3, Informative)

Polo (30659) | about a year and a half ago | (#42049337)

But really, Syfy should do Science Fiction (or even fantasy) instead.

To me, I could find all this kind of stuff on youtube.

Sorry, imho.

Re:I know this is supposed to be cool... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42050549)

The Science channel seems to be attempting to fill that void somewhat. Reruns of Fringe, Firefly, etc. It's not great, but it's a start.

http://science.discovery.com/ [discovery.com]

Re:I know this is supposed to be cool... (1)

Wolfrider (856) | about a year and a half ago | (#42076407)

--What I would like to see is a Bonus Round - which robot can destroy an identical object the fastest (like a car) -- similar to the Bonus round in the game "Final Fight":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fight [wikipedia.org]

Syfy? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42049339)

Syfy? What's that? Sisyphus? Syphilis? Almost sounds like it could be referring to science fiction, like that old Sci-fi channel, but it's spelled much more like that newer wrestling, horror and infomercial channel.

Oh - that's it, isn't it? It's that horrible cable channel that metastasized from the ruin of a science fiction channel. Well, nice to know they're still busy poisoning the very concept of imagination and entertainment in the name of ambiguous shareholder value.

Re:Syfy? (4, Insightful)

Master Moose (1243274) | about a year and a half ago | (#42049655)

At least they had the decency to change their name. History, National Geographic, I'm looking at you..

Re:Syfy? (4, Informative)

CRCulver (715279) | about a year and a half ago | (#42049719)

In retrospect, the fate of the Science-Fiction Channel/Sci-Fi/Syfy was inevitable. Attractive science fiction television is expensive to produce and there's no way a channel could have all its programming at the level of even a ST: TNG. What the channel ended up showing were science-fiction shows and television movies with shoestring budgets that often drew disgust. It's no suprise that the channel started moving to more sensationalistic fare that might have drawn it away from science-fiction, but drew it towards greater profitability.

Yes, good science-fiction can be made with low production values. Tarkovsky's Stalker is, among other things, one of the greatest science-fiction achievements in cinema, yet it shows no intricate machinery or massive on-screen violation of the laws of physics. But when scaled to a channel's entire programming, that sort of thing cannot grab and hold on to an audience.

Re:Syfy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42049891)

Of course they could just amortize it over a few decades, by picking up the old shows nobody was playing.

Oh wait, you say that's now the domain of Hulu, iTunes, and DVD boxsets and they don't want to compete?

Well, shoot, back to junk.

Seriously, I remember their animation station as cool, or the Anti-Gravity Room, and I was happy with that. And I remember when they had the Invisible Man, and Farscape, I even paid some attention to Battlestar Galactica (and I'm told other people loved it!) but I can't say what's on the network now.

Re:Syfy? (1)

pwizard2 (920421) | about a year and a half ago | (#42050211)

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean they had to cancel Stargate Universe right when it was starting to show some real promise (SG Atlantis could also have lasted for a few more seasons) and run more WWE/ghost hunting shit instead. Ending SGU was bad enough, but they had to do it on a goddamn cliffhanger so I will never know if the people managed to get home or not. (Yeah, I'm still pissed) When they got rid of SGU, I had no other reason to watch their network anymore.

Re:Syfy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42050505)

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean they had to cancel Stargate Universe right when it was starting to show some real promise...

As someone who has every episode of SG1 and Atlantis on DVD, I wasn't aware SGU had reached a point where it was starting to show any kind of promise. It was like watching a cross between a Tim Burton version of General Hospital and a reality show about gloomy, psychotic lab rats trapped in a box with a stargate logo stuck on it. The writers would tease, "Which one is going to kill another this episode?" And I'd respond, "I don't care."

Re:Syfy? (1)

pwizard2 (920421) | about a year and a half ago | (#42050589)

I guess I like SGU because it was different than SG1 and ATL. True, they did the whole "cut off from home" trope before in Atlantis S1. After they found a ZPM they could just dial home whenever they wanted so the show didn't have the same feel after that. I just wish they had explored the Destiny some more instead of mostly reusing the same areas for each episode. The ship itself (with all its various quirks and the personality it seemed to have) was my favorite "character".

Re:Syfy? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42054759)

As someone who has every episode of SG1 and Atlantis on DVD, I wasn't aware SGU had reached a point where it was starting to show any kind of promise

It was reaching a point where it was becoming vaguely interesting. Ditto for Enterprise. Shows are routinely murdered when they finally look like they might get some viewers. I'll never understand why someone will milk a show for years and then can it just when things are looking up.

Re:Syfy? (1)

sco08y (615665) | about a year and a half ago | (#42050819)

In retrospect, the fate of the Science-Fiction Channel/Sci-Fi/Syfy was inevitable. Attractive science fiction television is expensive to produce and there's no way a channel could have all its programming at the level of even a ST: TNG.

I take it you mean TNG's production quality by today's standards... yeah, what's happening is that branding yourself as "the channel for X" is proving to be an unsustainable business model and we're watching channels restructure.

Re:Syfy? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42049995)

Syfy? What's that? Sisyphus? Syphilis?

It means pimples in Polish, just like on a nerds face.

Re:Syfy? (2)

immovable_object (569797) | about a year and a half ago | (#42050125)

This is the same channel that is taking G4 from a tech channel to the Brave New World of reality TV and informercials.

I've given up on SyFy. Let's hope the next reboot doesn't load a virus as this one did.

Re:Syfy? (2)

bossk538 (1682744) | about a year and a half ago | (#42054539)

I always refer to it as "The Channel Formerly Known as Sci-Fi."

2 words to describe this... (0)

phayes (202222) | about a year and a half ago | (#42049347)

Robot Porn...

Sounds like pr0n (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42049375)

robots pounding away at each other in a satisfying shower of sparks and gushing hydraulic fluid.

wait a minute... (3, Funny)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year and a half ago | (#42049379)

But why is it being hosted by a Troll doll dressed as a douche?

You don't get to design your robot (2)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year and a half ago | (#42049381)

You don't get to design your robot. that sucks.

  Discovery Channel can do better. and I want to see the MythBusters build one.

Re:You don't get to design your robot (4, Insightful)

harperska (1376103) | about a year and a half ago | (#42049445)

The best part of Robot Wars/BattleBots was the fact that the teams designed and built their own robots. It was a competition of ingenuity as well as skill. If the competitors don't get to design their robots, this is nothing more than a gimmick, and will probably (hopefully) flop.

Re:You don't get to design your robot (1)

Ichijo (607641) | about a year and a half ago | (#42050389)

Robot Wars/BattleBots was enjoyable to watch, but the problem was that the robots were remote-controlled.

Rather than an R/C game between humans, it would be far more interesting to watch self-controlled robots battle each other. They have the potential of being much more quick and precise than human controllers, especially if they are able to compensate for damage the way the Space Shuttle Columbia was able to sense and compensate for drag from the damaged wing.

Re:You don't get to design your robot (5, Interesting)

chroma (33185) | about a year and a half ago | (#42050599)

I've been involved with robot fighting for over 15 years.

You're incorrect. Autonomous robots aren't as fun to watch as human controlled ones for at least 2 reasons:

1. The current state of the art just isn't good enough.
2. It's hard to root for a soulless lump of metal, whereas you can vicariously experience the competition through the human competitors.

Also, every robot fighting competition I've ever competed in has allowed autonomous competitors, as long as they have fail-safe remote control. So you're welcome to build your own autonomous fighting robot.

Re:You don't get to design your robot (1)

OhANameWhatName (2688401) | about a year and a half ago | (#42051493)

It's hard to root for a soulless lump of metal, whereas you can vicariously experience the competition through the human competitors.

Sounds like an excellent argument for human fights instead of robots fights.

Re:You don't get to design your robot (1)

chroma (33185) | about a year and a half ago | (#42051589)

True, though there is some precedent for human-machine pairing in sports like auto racing.

The old NASCAR was a great example of this. Fans who drove Chevys would root for the Chevy to win.

Re:You don't get to design your robot (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42053155)

I've watched Robocup every year, it's very easy to root for the "soulless lump of meal" (in that case, usually mostly plastic) in the humanoid leagues.

In the wheeled leagues there's no time to root for anything because they're so fast, even the near-human sized ones are crazy fast. But in the humanoid leagues, just as with real human soccer players you know they might trip or kick the ball wrong, you know the goal keeper might be momentarily confused and step out of the path of the ball instead of into it. For the finals and semi-finals they attract quite a crowd of people gasping and cheering at near misses and good efforts. Right now, of course, they're cheering abilities that wouldn't impress you in a five-year-old. Things like "clearing a ball that's rolled to a halt outside the goal" or "throwing a ball onto the pitch" or even "running in a straight line without falling over".

Robocup isn't telegenic because they're interested in the research problem. So for example when the current generation of custom robots get good enough, they don't say "That's great, we'll keep improving and put on an awesome show" they say "Aha, time to tighten the constraints" and make the robot feet smaller (more human-like) or restrict the vision to a narrower field (more human-like) or increase the minimum height and thus reduce inherent stability (see a pattern?). So this year's robots don't immediately look much better than those from six years ago, but when you examine the tech specs you see they are actually far more human-like and the software is doing a lot more just to stay upright and find the ball.

Re:You don't get to design your robot (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about a year and a half ago | (#42049559)

the mythbusters did or at least the several of the hosts did. in fact they have cannibalized there robots for parts several time on the show especially in the early seasons. Now if they did this show much more like discovery did junkyard wars where several teams build vehicles siege engines and robots from scrap metal and junked car parts then we would have something, other wise this is just televised knock-um sock-um robots. where the end result is even easier to stack/throw in favor of one competitor then it is in real boxing/wrestling.

Memories . . . (1)

Tontoman (737489) | about a year and a half ago | (#42049407)

This reminds me of Rock 'em Sock 'em Robot commercials that used to be on some of my favorite Saturday morning TV shows years ago. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVDpuTqD1Nc [youtube.com]

In other words: NOT ROBOTS. (2)

Seumas (6865) | about a year and a half ago | (#42049447)

The action resembles a real-life version of last year's hit movie Real Steel

So, just like Battle Bots, it won't actually have anything to do with robots. It'll just be giant remote-controlled toys operated by humans.

Don't really miss cable. Definitely don't miss "SyFy" (aka, the John Edwards and fake wrestling channel) or Comedy Central.

SyFy (1)

Megane (129182) | about a year and a half ago | (#42049501)

Pronounced "Shitty". Glad to hear they're living up to their name. And still no reason for me to pay for TV.

yay (4, Insightful)

the_Bionic_lemming (446569) | about a year and a half ago | (#42049673)

I had mod points so I stepped in to see if there were any corporate shills I could mod down, but as it should be SyFy is still a laughingstock and generally regarded as one of the dumbest channels on pay tv.

It's also the channel that got me to cut the cord.

Piss off and die SyFy. the nitwits that went for reality TV and wrestling to make more cash should be put up against a wall, shot, Duct Taped back on the wall, shot again and finally be staked in effigy to warn off others from being total douche-bags and emulating the way you destroyed a perfectly good SCI-FI channel.

If that isn't clear enough - SyFy Sucks!

Re:yay (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42050661)

Piss off and die SyFy. the nitwits that went for reality TV and wrestling to make more cash should be put up against a wall, shot, Duct Taped back on the wall, shot again and finally be staked in effigy to warn off others from being total douche-bags and emulating the way you destroyed a perfectly good SCI-FI channel.

Don't hold back, tell us how you really feel.

Re:yay (1)

cyberchondriac (456626) | about a year and a half ago | (#42056559)

I concur, except I wouldn't ever have described it as a "perfectly good" Sci-Fi channel. I don't think it ever lived up to it's potential, which I found disappointing, though now it doesn't try to live up to anything at all, which I find pathetic.

Giant Boxing? (1)

dandart (1274360) | about a year and a half ago | (#42049685)

My Reader preview shortened this to "Syfy Reality Show Will Feature Giant Boxing".

Then I thought "Whoa! But won't that just be like regular boxing, just a foot (or seven) higher?"

I suppose there must be demand for it, as there seems to be for "midget boxing"...

Thinking Too Small (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42049747)

Need 50 foot robots, with people inside operating them. Give it that human element.

I'd pay a large admission fee to see that.

Re:Thinking Too Small (1, Insightful)

Larryish (1215510) | about a year and a half ago | (#42050111)

Those would not be robots. They would be mechanical exoskeletons.

They would also be really, REALLY cool.

But they would not be "robots".

Now go to the office and turn in your geek card.

Re:Thinking Too Small (1)

pwizard2 (920421) | about a year and a half ago | (#42050671)

Awesome idea, but whoever owns the MechWarrior franchise these days would probably sue.

Ghost hunter... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42050123)

Why is it here in 2012 and everyone has a really nice camera on their phone...
All those ghost hunter, bigfoot, other monster shows.... all have the shittiest fuzziest cameras i've ever seen...

Even with nightvision capabilitys... Those cameras they use are FUCKING SAD.

On topic... I already saw that movie 3 decades ago. It was called robojocks and it was lame.

The photos were informative (3, Funny)

Grayhand (2610049) | about a year and a half ago | (#42050327)

Apparently they get them to fight by shoving a pole up their asses.

Robots Boxing Robots (1)

guttentag (313541) | about a year and a half ago | (#42050421)

Didn't Fox already try this? A reality show that was allegedly about some kid named John Connor and all the problems he had with his unusual family, but mostly about a robot in a miniskirt, or a "cybernetic organism with hyper-alloy combat chassis in a miniskirt," that boxes other robots [youtube.com] without messing its hair up. There seemed to be a bug in the programming that invariably caused the robots to stop boxing and begin throwing each other through walls. Often this would be followed by one or both being hit with motor vehicles moving at high speed. Perhaps SyFy has fixed this problem?

Great News (3, Interesting)

chroma (33185) | about a year and a half ago | (#42050647)

The best thing I've heard about this is that Mark Setrakian is involved. Competitors and real fans of robot fighting know him as one of the great geniuses of the sport.

He won the first Robot Wars with The Master. His later machines, Mechadon and Snake, were far less competitive, but were much more interesting.

Here's a video of Mechadon in action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=El8ne4zSCY0 [youtube.com]

I think it's cool! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42050825)

8 foot tall, 1,000lb robots controlled by humans. Are you kidding me? This is freeking AWESOME!
I've seen battle bots in person. Very cool, but nothing like this. I'm amazed the technology has advanced enough to support this.

Complain all you want after you have built something like this. I'm impressed!

Re:I think it's cool! (1)

jsepeta (412566) | about a year and a half ago | (#42051257)

with a stabilizing bar so one robot can't trip up the other robot then smash him. STUPID. I'd rather see robot wars where the robots were autonomous, and were allowed to splash each other with corrosives, water, oil, foam, whatever. there's no need for the robots to be shaped like humans, and in fact, it makes it DUMB. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0163488/ [imdb.com]

Reality? (1)

1u3hr (530656) | about a year and a half ago | (#42051359)

This is "reality"? it will be just as scripted as WWF. Probably completely pre-programmed while the "jockeys" just roleplay and mug for the cameras.

Giants (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42051385)

Has anyone mentioned GIANT ENEMY CRABs yet?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJElsNaC6yQ

Television... (1)

penguinstorm (575341) | about a year and a half ago | (#42051795)

has achieved the ultimate expression of the medium. People are no longer relevant to the process.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? (1)

ReadAholic (245150) | about a year and a half ago | (#42051829)

8 foot tall does not equal giant. 80 FOOT TALL = GIANT

Re:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? (1)

flibbidyfloo (451053) | about a year and a half ago | (#42054215)

Just to play devil's advocate, compared to most current robots 8' is awfully tall. That's like twice the height of Asimo, right? The supposed "giant anaconda", which may or may not exist, is only purported to be twice the size of the regular ones. And Andre the giant wasn't 80 feet tall :)

I think for now, giant could apply to an 8' tall robot. Hopefully we'll see some of those, as opposed to the ones in that photo.

syfy is dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42053867)

has been for a long long time....

Wow! Chris Jericho is eight feet tall?? (1)

flibbidyfloo (451053) | about a year and a half ago | (#42054161)

I need to start watching WWE!
Seriously it's funny to me that the the opening paragraph hypes the "eight-foot tall robots" under a photo that was probably purposefully staged to not make the host look smaller than the bots behind him so as not to bruise his ego or something.
Pure speculation on my part of course. Don't bring your WWE robot buddies to my house to beat me up, Mr Jericho!

OMF2097 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42054409)

It is all cr*p until they develop machines equal to the robots in OMF2097.

Re:OMF2097 (1)

Wolfrider (856) | about a year and a half ago | (#42076547)

--I find your ideas intriguing, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Star Gate Universe got cancelled (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42054887)

because of this crappy concept. pls. don't watch it when it airs.

So (1)

Richy_T (111409) | about a year and a half ago | (#42054955)

Could I get a little bread with my circuses, please?

(Though this does sound awesome. Gotta admit)

Real Steel (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42058451)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0433035/

What WOULD get me to watch... (1)

NonFerrousBueller (1175131) | about a year and a half ago | (#42059493)

I've been out of the TV loop for a while. Every time I get tempted to start watching again, I'm put off by the overabundance of hype and the poor signal to noise ratio - see other poster's comment about stretching two minutes of substance into half an hour.

That said, I'm looking forward to the day when we have giant mechatronic "robots" fighting in arenas. By "giant" I mean big enough that you'll need to host these in stadiums - think monster-truck shows, and attendant audiences. This would, of course, be vastly expensive, but at $30/seat in a 30,000 seat stadium plus corporate sponsorship, it could work. I'm talking fire-breathing, metal crunching, roaring beasts, twenty or thirty feet tall. Burning Man meets Survival Research Labs meets Mythbusters, with enough WWF to keep the seats full of hollering fans full of two percent beer.

THEN I'd watch TV.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...