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!

Sci-Fi Channel to Pick Up John Doe

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the next-show-planned-for-pickup-is-alf dept.

Sci-Fi 203

KrayzieKyd writes "The Sci-Fi Channel will be showing 'John Doe', another dead series that premiered with cult hit Firefly. It features a man with no memory of who he is but, but somehow has infinite knowledge. With his gift, he solves crimes which are hinted through his monochromatic sight with color. The show will re-premiere Friday, Jan 20 at 9pm ET." It's raining new shows on Sci-Fi, apparently.

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

Torrent for the old episodes (2, Informative)

HeavyMS (820705) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472515)

can be found here []

STFU (0, Offtopic)

Adolf Hitroll (562418) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472677)

I am not writing to agree or disagree with HeavyMS. What I have to say, however, regards HeavyMS's conscious decision to funnel significant amounts of money to testy, pestiferous bums. I assume you already know that his self-declared suzerainty over ugly, obnoxious spongers may enable him to limit the terms of debate by declaring certain subjects beyond discussion, but I have something more important to tell you. He appears to have found a new tool to use to help him encourage individuals to disregard other people, to become fully self-absorbed. That tool is radicalism, and if you watch him wield it, you'll unequivocally see why he has announced his intentions to intensify or perpetuate fascism. While doing so may earn HeavyMS a gold star from the mush-for-brains jujuism crowd, once you understand his undertakings, you have a responsibility to do something about them. To know, to understand, and not to act, is an egregious sin of omission. It is the sin of silence. It is the sin of letting HeavyMS hasten the destruction of our civilization. I can't predict the future, but I do know this: HeavyMS has nothing but contempt for responsibility, duty, and honor. I submit that everyone should stop and mull that assertion. Then, you'll understand why HeavyMS spews nothing but lame retorts and innuendoes. That should serve as the final, ultimate, irrefutable proof that he uses big words like "scientificogeographical" to make himself sound important. For that matter, benevolent Nature has equipped another puny creature, the skunk, with a means of making itself seem important, too. Although HeavyMS's doctrines may reek like a skunk, some people don't seem to mind that HeavyMS likes to resolve a moral failure with an immoral solution. What an inarticulate world we live in! I have a tendency to report the more sensational things that HeavyMS is up to, the more shocking things, things like how he wants to wipe out delicate ecosystems. And I realize the difficulty that the average person has in coming to grips with that, but if you're interested in the finagling, double-dealing, chicanery, cheating, cajolery, cunning, rascality, and abject villainy by which he may take rights away from individuals whom only HeavyMS perceives as mealymouthed one of these days, then you'll want to consider the following very carefully. You'll especially want to consider that I can easily see HeavyMS performing the following randy acts. First, he will trick our children into adopting unconventional, disapproved-of opinions and ways of life. Then, he will embark on wholesale torture and slaughter of innocent civilians. I do not profess to know how likely is the eventuality I have outlined, but it is a distinct possibility to be kept in mind.

HeavyMS's idiotic claim that it is not only acceptable, but indeed desirable, to pursue a twofold credo of factionalism and alcoholism is just that, an idiotic claim. It's about time HeavyMS stopped claiming his officious flimflams were influenced by outside sources and just admitted he was wrong. But let's not lose perspective. If we let HeavyMS supplant national heroes with acrimonious lugs, then greed, corruption, and extremism will characterize the government. Oppressive measures will be directed against citizens. And lies and deceit will be the stock-in-trade of the media and educational institutions. In light of my stance on this issue, time cannot change his behavior. Time merely enlarges the field in which HeavyMS can, with ever-increasing intensity and thoroughness, obstruct important things. It seems that no one else is telling you that to enter into philosophic disputations with such cheeky (or at least, disreputable) vulgarians is both mutinous and pharisaical. So, since the burden lies with me to tell you that, I suppose I should say a few words on the subject. To begin with, if I want to hide in a closet, that should be my prerogative. I don't need HeavyMS forcing me to.

Come on, HeavyMS; I know you're capable of thoughtful social behavior. Developing a policy of inclusion will not be easy, because his theories are based on a denial of reality, on the substitution of a deliberately falsified picture of the world in place of reality. And this dishonesty, this refusal to admit the truth, will have some very serious consequences for all of us sooner than you think. It should be stressed that I frequently wish to tell him that he fears nothing more than the exposure of his motives and activities. But being a generally genteel person, however, I always bite my tongue.

Even if our society had no social problems at all, we could still say that I am not concerned with rumors or hearsay about HeavyMS. I am interested only in ascertained facts attested by published documents, and in these primarily as an illustration that HeavyMS just keeps on saying, "I don't give a [expletive deleted] about you. I just want to shatter and ultimately destroy our most precious possessions." As for me, I have no bombs, no planes, no artillery, and no terrorist plots. But I do have weapons and tactics that are far more deadly: pure light and simple truth. Even with the increasing number of two-faced HeavyMS clones, HeavyMS might require religious services around the world to begin with "HeavyMS is great; HeavyMS is good; we thank HeavyMS for our daily food" in the blink of an eye. What are we to do then? Place blinders over our eyes and hope we don't see the horrible outcome?

There are few certainties in life. I have counted only three: death, taxes, and HeavyMS doing some imprudent thing every few weeks. Be that as it may, either he has no real conception of the sweep of history, or he is merely intent on winning some debating pin by trying to pierce a hole in my logic with "facts" that are taken out of context. As everyone knows, HeavyMS's the type of person who would give voice, in a totally emotional and non-rational way, to his deep-rooted love of mandarinism if he got the chance. What you might not know, however, is that any rational argument must acknowledge this. HeavyMS's gruesome, insensitive calumnies, naturally, do not.

If one believes statements like, "Mediocrity and normalcy are ideal virtues," one is, in effect, supporting crotchety lunatics. After being called a soporific carpetbagger a hundred times or so by HeavyMS and his companions, I have reached the conclusion that I recommend paying close attention to the praxeological method developed by the economist Ludwig von Mises and using it as a technique to end HeavyMS's control over the minds and souls of countless people. The praxeological method is useful in this context because it employs praxeology, the general science of human action, to explain why not only does HeavyMS create massive civil unrest, but he then commands his myrmidons, "Go, and do thou likewise." I, not being one of the many tendentious, intransigent Machiavellians of this world, have long been under the impression that I frequently talk about how we live in a deeply troubled society. I would drop the subject, except that he teaches workshops on ageism. Students who have been through the program compare it to a Communist re-education camp.

It must be pointed out over and over again to HeavyMS's helots and, in a broader sense, to the most out-of-touch wheeler-dealers you'll ever see that only the impartial and unimpassioned mind will even consider that HeavyMS is the picture of the insane person on the street, babbling to a tree, a wall, or a cloud, which cannot and does not respond to his invectives. I heard through the grapevine that he demonstrates a terrible, inaccurate, even shiftless, misuse of history with his self-satisfied offhand remarks. Whether or not this rumor is true, the unalterable law of biology has a corollary that is generally overlooked. Specifically, HeavyMS wants us to feel sorry for the unholy pissants who quote me out of context. I, not being one of the many dour nabobs of recidivism of this world, think we should instead feel sorry for their victims, all of whom know full well that mass anxiety is the equivalent of steroids for HeavyMS. If we feel helpless, HeavyMS is energized and ramps up his efforts to anesthetize the human spirit. HeavyMS's henchmen argue that he has a duty to conceal the facts and lie to the rest of us, under oath if necessary, perjuring himself to help disseminate the True Faith of emotionalism. These are the same self-indulgent dissemblers who parlay personal and political conspiracy theories into a multimillion-dollar financial empire. This is no coincidence; because of HeavyMS's obsession with incendiarism, all he really wants is to hang onto the perks he's getting from the system. That's all he really cares about.

If you think about it, HeavyMS claims to be supportive of my plan to embrace diversity. Don't trust him, though; he's a wolf in sheep's clothing. Before you know it, he'll denigrate and discard all of Western culture. Not only that, but HeavyMS thinks it would be a great idea to spread hatred, animosity, and divisiveness. Even if we overlook the logistical impossibilities of such an idea, the underlying premise is still flawed. Worse yet, he wants to demonize my family and friends. HeavyMS's understrappers have coordinated their propaganda efforts into a superbly-wrought symphony of hatred and destruction. If you don't believe me, see for yourself.

If HeavyMS isn't picayunish, I don't know who is. All kidding aside, he doesn't care about freedom, as he can neither eat it nor put it in the bank. It's just a word to him. I have just one word for HeavyMS: lithochromatographic. He has endorsed the idea of stentorian Fabianism in a number of specific ways, arguing, for instance, in favor of his apple-polishers' decision to spit on sacred icons. Should we blindly trust such cranky brutes? His favorite buzzword these days is "crisis". HeavyMS likes to tell us that we have a crisis on our hands. He then argues that the only reasonable approach to combat this crisis is for him to encourage crass nebbishes to see themselves as victims and, therefore, live by alibis rather than by honest effort. In my opinion, the real crisis is the dearth of people who understand that HeavyMS refuses to come to terms with reality. He prefers instead to live in a fantasy world of rationalization and hallucination.

Now there will, no doubt, be spineless low-lifes out there who will ask, "So what if HeavyMS's assistants make things worse? That won't affect me." Such crippled thinking is the best example there is as to why HeavyMS is absolutely determined to believe that snivelling stirrers are more deserving of honor than our nation's war heroes, and he's not about to let facts or reason get in his way. Listen up: If he wants to complain, he should have an argument. He shouldn't just throw out the word "hexosemonophosphoric", for example, and expect us to be scared. Unfortunately, I can already see the response to this letter. Someone, possibly HeavyMS himself or one of his satraps, will write a hateful piece about how contumelious I am. If that's the case, then so be it. What I just wrote sorely needed to be written.

Re:Torrent for the old episodes (1)

AwaxSlashdot (600672) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472756)

When you're out of sources to DL a file on BT, just post the link on /. and you'll sure soon have half a million more people to DL from.

Re:Torrent for the old episodes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14472839)

Thank you!

Now (5, Insightful)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472526)

If only somebody could convince Sci-Fi to stop making a new 'oh no monster' craptastic movie each month, and instead maybe make a couple really good ones a year.

Re:Now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14472557)

or remaking or knocking off hit movies ("HG Well's War of the Worlds" anyone?). Guys, stick to good series, bring out a few good movies and please, please burn any and all copies of Nick Fury: Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D.

Re:Now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14472792)

SciFi made that pile of crap starring Tom Cruise?

Re:Now (1)

netglen (253539) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472959)

No, not the perverted American version. The true blue British version is much better. Go Thunderchild!

Re:Now (2, Interesting)

no_pets (881013) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472608)

IMHO SciFi makes a couple of good movies a year and some fun-to-watch "B" movie escapism movies to help fill the void.

I like them and hope they keep up the work.

Re:Now (2, Interesting)

luna69 (529007) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472620)

> If only somebody could convince Sci-Fi to stop making
> a new 'oh no monster' craptastic movie each month


I'd rather they spend their money on making maybe one great show per season (and fill the rest of the time with reruns, old movies, independently produced shows by up-and-coming directors, etc) than continue to try and force feed us a steady diet of "Stargate: [$x]" or "[$deadly_animal_name]: The Lost City" or "[$any_show_in_space]".

They're far too conservative (not taking chances with new and interesting material), pour too much money into schlock that appeals to nobody but twelve year old boys, and generally give "Science Fiction" a bad name. There's so much excellent, interesting, literary, smart science fiction out there, it's a crying shame that, for the most part, the best that hollywood seems to be able to do is cough up formulaic pap.

I *do* have to give them credit for carrying BsG, which ranks right up there with the best stuff on TV (I rate it, on my personal scale, in the same neighborhood as the best seasons of BtVS, Showtime's "Weeds", HBO's "Six Feet Under", etc).

Re:Now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14472733)

Oi, Stargate is good. And it's on Sky One here in the UK.

Re:Now (2, Interesting)

Belgand (14099) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472866)

Well if you look at their current schedule they really don't have very smart people running the show over there.

Most days tend to be 8am-3pm being filled with re-runs of some sort often with only the vaguest sci-fi connection (e.g. Knight Rider). Not re-runs of multiple shows, but re-runs of the same show all day long. Then we get some time for the X-Files, maybe a Stargate SG-1 re-run and a some random crap. They'll usually toss in a movie at night. Sometimes it's something worth seeing (e.g. Stargate, Army of Darkness), but recently it's far more likely to be Dracula 3000 or some piece of dreck that they financed.

The only night of original programming they have is on Fridays when they run 3 shows (currently, though bringing Dr. Who to the US is a smart move): Stargate SG-1, Stargate Atlantis, and Battlestar Galactica. I'm not certain if they're still running Firefly re-runs on Fridays as well because I have the DVDs.

Of all the money they have to spend (that they don't spend producing some of the absolute best bumps I've ever seen) they funnel into those 3 shows and some absolutely piss-poor movies. Now, I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure that almost nobody watches Stargate Atlantis. I can't imagine that anyone watches their movies unless they involve Bruce Campbell in some way (and even then Alien Invasion was beyond me after the first 30 minutes). They need to stop making the crappy movies and instead start seeking some new original programming and not the crappy original shows they've done in the past that nobody watched. While they destroyed Sliders and eventually killed MST3k at least they were trying. Picking up other people's properties seems to be the best they can really do.

That said they are currently working on new shows (at least, according to including an adaptation of Mike Mignola's Amazing Screw-On Head and a show called Eureka about a town in the Pacific Northwest where the government has been secretly relocating the world's geniuses. Admittedly they have a variety of projects going on, but most are only at the script stage and of the few ordered to pilot most never seem to ever get picked up or even screened. Check the showwatch and devwatch sections at futon critic to see what else they're supposedly working on. At least they're trying.

Re:Now (0)

modecx (130548) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472971)

Don't talk about Stargate that way, because we WILL find where you live, Mr. Luna69... And it won't be pretty :)

Anyway, who besides an adolescent male appends '69' to their username? Just by that metric I'd say that it's most likely that you were wanking off to that poster of Amanda Tapping on your wall whilst you were writing this little diatribe.

Oh, and the only use BsG*yawn* has is as an intermission between four otherwise excellent hours of television... And it's a good thing, too, otherwise some of us might grow some sort of darkness loving moss on Friday evenings!

I Don't know who sci-fi channel's audience is (1)

SF-Nacht (861882) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472646)

But it isn't me, and I love science fiction. I think most of their programming is crap. The show discussed in the article was just fox's attempt to regurgitate some kind of "Bourne Identity: The Show" as the film had just been released.

Re:I Don't know who sci-fi channel's audience is (1)

toad3k (882007) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472873)

I remember this show. It wasn't bad until some kid asked him to recite dos verbally in binary, which he did. After that I stopped watching.

Actually I think that was 20 minutes into the first episode.

Re:I Don't know who sci-fi channel's audience is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14473023)

I watched a couple of episodes, but it was boring because it would just jump to a conclusion. CSI gives you clues even if you never had a chance to figure it out. In the pilot, John Doe walked into a room and said it was the wrong size or something due to a 30 year old fire code. No investigation, no case building, nothing.

Re:Now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14472751)

I agree with you. I watched _one_ of those horrible movies, even though it looked like it was going to be bad. It was, and I never saw any reason to watch any of the other movies, because they all look terrible.

Still, they do such a great job when they really make the attempt. Look at the BSG, Dune, and Children of Dune mini-series.

There is some truly great Sci-fi out there that will never see the light of day in the movies, but might make truly excellent mini-series or series. Surely the rights to some of this sci-fi must be available on the cheap.

Not to mention series with good potential that failed due to stupid scheduling and general network antagonism towards sci-fi (Firefly, Crusade, etc.).

BSG is phenomenal, so we know they are capable of it. If they take a few chances a year, one of them is bound to catch on.

Re:Now (2, Funny)

Kohath (38547) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472758)

I like their creative choices of monsters too. I think the next one is going to be about people who are attacked by giant squirrels.

Here is some inspiration from the news:
Truce called in war on squirrels []
Squirrels Gone Wild []
Russian squirrel pack 'kills dog' []

That's going to be a good movie.

MONSTER in my pants (1)

Darthmalt (775250) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472909)

Oh no, a monster! Oh no, a monster! Oh no, oh no, oh no a giant monster Monster! Monster! Oh no, a giant monster! Shut the window, bolt the door! Don't wanna see that monster no more! Monster in my pants [] by the B-52s

They're not making the movies... (1)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472911)

...are they? I mean, they advertise them as "Sci Fi world premieres," but I've just been assuming that these were B movies that studios make to go straight to video but that get picked up by Sci-Fi as filler material to avoid showing yet another rerun of some old series. (Not that there's anything wrong with old series, unless you've watched them a million times already.)

In most of them, you can tell that the dirty words have been silenced out. Why would Sci-Fi make a movie that they know they'll be airing with language they know they can't use? Sometimes I'll even see a bare breast blurred out and such.

Sometimes, I'll even see one of these crapfests (and I mean the term in a flattering way ;-) on a premium movie channel a few months before Sci Fi airs it.

Nah, I don't think they're actually making these movies. Okay, maybe sometimes financing part of them, but not making them specifically for the network. These kinds of movies have been made since the video market started booming, and will still be around long after the Sci Fi channel is a distant memory.

I mean, really, there always has to be a little Jerry Springer mixed in with the Masterpiece Theater, you know? And yes, I also like vegging out once in a while by partaking of some of the mind-numbing entertainment they show. :-)

Re:They're not making the movies... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14472953)

They're generally billed as scifi origional pictures, which means people from scifi wrote and produced it. Sort of like made-for-tv movies they show on abc and shit about a mother who loses her child in a custody battle and then kidnaps him, or some shit.

Re:Now (1)

Belseth (835595) | more than 8 years ago | (#14473052)

It's fast food film making. It's kind of like saying why doesn't MacDonald's food taste better? Better to eat one good meal a day than three really bad ones. Well you spend most of the day hungry. Advertisers don't want to hear they're making one decent film a month instead of four cheesy ones. Even cheap films can be good but that requires talent and as many have noticed most of the talent has been run out of Hollywood. It's nearly impossible to get a script read and most can't tell the difference between a good one and a bad one. I've produced a few films but I just recently after fifteen years of trying sold a script. Well the first thing out of the producers mouth was how much they loved it and the second thing was all the things they were going to change. By the time he was done I had decided to use a alias. A talented person might write the script but then the talentless hacks get to put their two cents in and what's left generally is pretty godawful. You've heard of the saying that a camel is a horse by commitee? Well that's how films get made. It's really amazing when a good one sneaks through the minefield. It's far more about egoes and justifying jobs than making good movies.

Well... (1)

Shadikka (876072) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472528)

They're probably just out of new series, so they're going to air old series as much as possible before anyone notices the lack of anything new...

Farscape! (1, Redundant)

vjl (40603) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472529)

I wish they would bring back Farscape. That, and Firefly, would be good for the network, me thinks.


Re:Farscape! (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472670)

Here's hoping this starts a trend. It would totally rock if they picked up a new season of Roswell....

(Starts playing the eighth episode of season 2 from his DVD boxed set. Only TV show I own on DVD.)

Re:Farscape! (1)

dlmarti (7677) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472838)

I'm with you FireFly rocks, and Farscape was a close second.
Get rid of Atlantis, and all of their made-for-scifi movies and they would have plenty of capital.

Farscape had closure. (1)

mosel-saar-ruwer (732341) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472982)

I wish they would bring back Farscape.

For what purpose?


Did you see the special movie finale? Crichton opened up a wormhole that threatened to tear apart the space-time fabric of the universe, and in so doing forced the Scarans and the Peacekeepers to the bargaining table; a treaty was signed, with the entire process being overseen by Scorpie; Chrichton lost his best friend in the final battle, became a father of a boy by Erin Sun, and named his newborn son after his fallen comrade.


So what would they do as a follow-up? Join forces with Jesus Christ to save Santa Claus from Saddam Hussein?

Re:Farscape had closure. (1)

21st Century Peon (812997) | more than 8 years ago | (#14473083)

So what would they do as a follow-up? Join forces with Jesus Christ to save Santa Claus from Saddam Hussein?

I like what I'm hearing - if you can fit it into a "pro-celebrity antiques quiz" format, you've got yourself a development deal, son.

Re:Farscape! (1)

smartin (942) | more than 8 years ago | (#14473043)

Yes exactly, the SciFi channel is the right place for Firefly, not fox. Firefly on SciFi would be huge and get them
lots of extra interest for other shows.

One side effect of infinite knowledge... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14472531)

...causes John to insert the occasional extra 'but' into the conversation.

Cliffhanger (5, Insightful)

pantropik (604178) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472535)

The series ended with a cliffhanger (first season finale), which I've always thought is a pretty nasty thing to do to your audience, not that I'd expect anything better from Fox. I watched it the first time around in tandem with Firefly and was looking forward to some payoff in the second season, but I can't see a reason to watch it again knowing there will never be a payoff at all. You can bet Sci-Fi won't mention that when they are promoting it.

Re:Cliffhanger (3, Informative)

halcyon1234 (834388) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472672)

The series ended with a cliffhanger (first season finale), which I've always thought is a pretty nasty thing to do to your audience, not that I'd expect anything better from Fox.

I always thought there should be a law that prevents any show from having a cliffhanger unless they have already been guarenteed a next season.

As you mention, Fox is notoriously bad for this. Right off the top of my head, I can think of VR5, Brimstone and American Gothic. All great SF(ish) shows that had cliffhangers and were cancelled. Cruel beyond belief.

Re:Cliffhanger (1)

vjl (40603) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472730)

Farscape did end in a cliffhanger, because at the time, they were told they had a 2 season renewal [the cliffhanger was at the end of the first of those seasons]. They were not told until the final shooting of the cliffhanger that they would not be back on the air the next season. Kinda hard to change the story line when you're on the last [or nearly the last] day of shooting, eh?

you forgot (2, Interesting) (142825) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472735)

You forgot about Strange Luck [] . Like John Doe, it is one of those shows that cannot be explained in 1 sentence.

Re:you forgot (1)

brian0918 (638904) | more than 8 years ago | (#14473060)

I was just going to reply about this show! It was excellent, and I couldn't wait for the 2nd season to start... but then there was something else aired in its place... and that was the end of that.

Re:Cliffhanger (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14472769)

Theres also Carnivale. The show was planned to be three acts with each act equating to two seasons. The show got two seasons in before being cancelled by HBO. Its cliffhanger was particularly nasty, and even worse knowing there were a good 4 seasons left before the whole story would be told.

Re:Cliffhanger (2, Interesting)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472898)

Its cliffhanger was particularly nasty, and even worse knowing there were a good 4 seasons left before the whole story would be told.

However, like Farscape, Carnivale's cliffhanger could have been avoided by skipping the last 2-3 minutes of the last episode. Without those minutes, both shows could have been considered to have half-way decent wrap-ups. Not anywhere near perfect (such as the ending of the Buffy series) but at least average.

Re:Cliffhanger (1)

Erwos (553607) | more than 8 years ago | (#14473075)

VR.5's cliff-hanger still haunts me to this day. What the hell happened to Sidney? Also, where's the damn DVD release?


Re:Cliffhanger (1)

frovingslosh (582462) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472717)

It was pretty obvious from watching even a few episodes of the show that the writers had no idea of where they were going with the main plot of the show and were just winging it as they went. That tells me it's pointless to watch and try to figure out what will happen on the show, since the illusion of any logic behind the story is only created later.

The supposed cliff hanger certainly reinforces my belief. And knowing that there will never be anything resolved, one has to wonder why anyone would watch this even if they had not seen it first time around.

Re:Cliffhanger (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472871)

The supposed cliff hanger certainly reinforces my belief.

I disagree. I was able to predict the cliff-hanger almost from episode 1, just based on the choice of actors. Thus it was clear to me that the show did have an internal logic. They did create a few "filler" episodes, but even those ended up playing a part in later episodes.

For those wondering about how to predict the cliff-hanger, here's the spoiler.


Rule of thumb - big name actors do not take unimportant bit parts.

Re:Cliffhanger (2, Interesting)

DavidTC (10147) | more than 8 years ago | (#14473036)

Actually, you want to know where the story was ultimate going? It did have an overall premise behind John Doe, which was revealed after the show to be:

Basically, when you die, God, or something, tells you everything that happened, every single known thing. Basically, it's nethack's 'Do you you want your possessions identified?'

Somehow, those Phoenix people figured this out (probably someone else in history did it), and figured out a way to get a guy, whoever John Doe was, to this point without him actually being dead, and bring him back. (Or maybe, with him actually being dead.)

This appears to have been quite a bit more involved than 'Flatliners', and seemed to involve him physically reappearing in the world.

Hence, he became 'The Phoenix'.

What is with the memory loss is unknown, as is whether or not he left behind a corpse when he 'died'.

Re:Cliffhanger (2, Interesting)

DavidTC (10147) | more than 8 years ago | (#14473000)

Actually, that cliffhanger was the show's fault. (Not that I give fox any slack for canceling the series.)

The revelation of the guy at the end (I'm trying not to spoil it.) was not intended to be that guy. They apparently were going to cast and bring in someone, playing that guy, as the villian of the next season.

They literally threw it in at the last minute when they realized the show was canceled, basically to confuse the hell out of people.

Hell, if you've got to go out, go out with a bang, right? Or at least go out with something that will make people go 'Huh?' and watch all the episodes again.

Yes, I know quite a lot of places will claim the show was cancelled after the last episode was filmed. The shows producers, however, claim they knew.

And, unlike

On SciFi Channel Programming (1)

Lord Norton (944462) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472542)

It's true. SciFi seems to murder its best shows.

English? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14472556)

> he solves crimes which are hinted through
> his monochromatic sight with color.


Re:English? (3, Informative)

pantropik (604178) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472567)

He has no memory of his past and sees everything in black and white. Sometimes, though, he'll see an object or person in color, which causes him to pay special attention to the person/oject and, you know, go adventuring and solve crimes and stuff.

At least... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14472558)

It's better than day long runs of "The (Insert Animal) Attacks"

spoiler! (1)

jx100 (453615) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472575)

I remember reading that the reason for all his knowledge was because he nearly died in some boating accident. When you die, you immediately know everything, but forget your own personal details. He just somehow got saved at the last second.

Re:spoiler! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14472656)

Thank you for this. I now can sleep. :)

Main actor has new job (1)

hlopez (220083) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472585)

What are they going to do with the fact that the main actor is now part of another series? Prison Break

Re:Main actor has new job (1)

pantropik (604178) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472603)

They're just rebroadcasting the old episodes, not producing new ones. So they'll show the 20-whatever shows a few times, including the final cliffhanger that was never resolved, and that's that.

But (1)

Trip Ericson (864747) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472587)

I watched every episode when it first aired on Fox. I loved the show. I hated how they left a cliffhanger at the end and then cancelled it. Any plans to at least tell the story of where he came from? I'm still curious about it.

Re:But (1)

supersocialist (884820) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472651)

The producer spilled the beans after it was cancelled. I'm not going to spoil it in an open forum, but it should take you all of five seconds with Google to find the explanations.

Took a little suspension of disbelief, but not bad (4, Interesting)

koreth (409849) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472594)

I was pretty skeptical about that show when it started, but it grew on me. Its big saving grace is that the lead does a great job of acting like a bit of a dork most of the time.

The show has an ongoing storyline, which stars off kind of slow but takes a pretty wild turn late in the season. Sadly, we'll never know how it ends, since the season-ending cliffhanger was the last episode. So beware if you start in on it -- you will be left hanging.

I suppose it's possible Sci-Fi could do a movie-of-the-week or two to wrap it up, like the "Alien Nation" movies did for that show. That would be swell. But I'm not holding my breath.

Premise used on X-Files? (1)

BertieBaggio (944287) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472597)

Interesting concept, but...

This whole black n' white Vs colour was used in an episode of the X-files... except the other way round. A guy saw things in colour, but then they turned black and white, and died. He used this power to, uh, take photos of the bodies and, uh, sell them to the police.

So it's not *exactly* the same concept, I guess...

And I agree with whoever says bring back Farscape. Though I did enjoy catching a glimpse of the actors that played John and Aeryn on SG-1.

John Doe brought down Firefly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14472599)

I really think that if Firefly didnt have to air AFTER the crapfest that was John Doe, it would've made it to another season.

I remember thinking it back then... "Firefly is going to get bad ratings because its surrounded in its lineup with crap."

I think part of the success of Smallville is owed to Gillmore Girls.

Re:John Doe brought down Firefly (2, Insightful)

pantropik (604178) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472635)

A consistent schedule, at least a nod toward marketing the show and maybe one or two episodes being shown in the proper order might have helped, too. I actually liked John Doe ... it was like "X-Files & The Pretender: What if they mated?"

Re:John Doe brought down Firefly (1)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472806)

X-Pretender, Two skinny FBI agents undercover as porn stars. How could that go wrong?

Re:John Doe brought down Firefly (2, Insightful)

luna69 (529007) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472667)

You're right - FF was done a huge disservice by the people who put the lineup together. Well-written, character-driven SF on TV *can* be successful (e.g., BsG), but not if it's put in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's a shame, because the writing was great, the cast was obviously in sync, and there was plenty of room for storyline growth.

Oh well.

What will happen, eventually -- Hollywood is going to have to be dragged into the future kicking and screaming -- is that we will move away from this broadcast delivery model in which we are expected to watch shows at specific times. Once the whole issue of how money changes hands gets worked out, things will progress rapidly, I think - witness the popularity of TiVO and its copycats. As long as content producers can find a way to get paid, they'll be on board...and it may turn out that when people can watch whatever they want, whenever they want, that shows like FF have more of a shot at building an audience.

Of course then marketing shows to the public becomes an issue: in the broadcast model, there are only so many channels, and only so many hours in the day. This limits the pool of competitors for eyeballs. When people can choose from a wider array of content and watch it on their terms, profits can be diluted, competition can be fiercer for eyeball loyalty, etc.

On a related note: if I could, I would gladly pay a nominal fee to watch serial shows like BsG, FF, etc. without commercials. If I could buy access to what amounts to about 40 minutes of actual content, skip the commercials, and see the show in high def, I'd GLADLY pay the content producers.

Re:John Doe brought down Firefly (1)

BearRanger (945122) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472807)

On a related note: if I could, I would gladly pay a nominal fee to watch serial shows like BsG, FF, etc. without commercials. If I could buy access to what amounts to about 40 minutes of actual content, skip the commercials, and see the show in high def, I'd GLADLY pay the content producers.

You have most of this, at least for BsG. It's available on iTunes the day after broadcast, without commercials, for $1.99. Now if only Apple would get going on the high def content.

Re:John Doe brought down Firefly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14472703)

I like John Doe actually, much more so than Firefly. And for your information, John Doe came on AFTER Firefly. I know this because I fell asleep a couple of times during Firefly waiting for it to air. I really don't understand what everyone's fasination with Firefly is, I watched most episodes and I really tried to like it, but the story was moving PAINFULLY slow. It really didn't help that I can understand Chinese either, because I found the periodic Chinese phrases inserted here and there to be extremely annoying--like an obsessive anime fan that would mix random Japanese words and expressions in their spoken English.

Re:John Doe brought down Firefly (1)

Pizaz (594643) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472980)

I know that in my area in Seattle, John Doe came on FIRST. No doubt about this in my mind.

Re:John Doe brought down Firefly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14472725)

I really think that if Firefly didnt have to air AFTER the crapfest that was John Doe, it would've made it to another season.

  I know. "...and solves crimes!" is just such a lazy excuse for a series idea. I turn on the TV lately and it looks like 50% of the country are either serial killers or their victims, and the rest are all lawyers, detectives, forensics experts, and psychics trying to catch them. That was reason #1 I never felt any desire to see an episode of John Doe..

  As for reason #2, I still remembered watching that crap series "Nowhere Man" -- that show was at least creative enough to avoid the "he becomes a cop/detective/vigilante" cliche, but by the last third of the season it became agonizingly clear that the writers had no friggin' clue what was really going on and were just making the stuff up as they went along. The final episode just gave us this confused, hallucinatory mishmash that suggested he was a secret agent who had been brainwashed by one group or other, which was a depressingly conventional turn of events that thankfully didn't get a new season to be played out in.

  In short, I hate you, Television. Bring back Futurama and maybe we'll talk. If it's good again.

Pointless to watch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14472605)

Pointless to watch. At the end of the season, we learned nothing. They scrapped the series and we never learned what the heck happened.

Now pick up - Threshold (2, Interesting)

gadlaw (562280) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472616)

I broke my own rule of not even looking sideways at a television show until it has at least two years in the can by watching and enjoying Threshold. I look for it after the Christmas break and find it has been cancelled. Most annoying. Now I'm waiting for Surface to be cancelled and of course the crapfest Invasion will probably be on air for years to come. No justice.

Re:Now pick up - Threshold (1)

shawnce (146129) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472789)

They are running Threshold on SciFi soon it looks like.

Re:Now pick up - Threshold (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14472870)

Ha... Threshold... where a single sound is capable of:
1) mutating humans and animals
2) hacking cell phones and computer networks

And then they have one dude who is both, brilliant Linguist and exceptional Mathematician, as if those two fields were related.

and then we have plot holes that make no sence, the head of operation, the planner, exposing herself..


or surface, where there is no concept of proper timeframe managment between two threads... And then dont get me even started on the whole submersible..


Invasion atleast has decent plot: there are pod people, but cuz they retain their old memories they dont know what to do, what they are, and keep struggling with their new themselves...


ofcourse, there is always, sg1, atlantis (still starting up, so it aint great yet), bsg, lost, smallville (when you drunk), numb3rs (cuz it got math)...

SCI-FI channel sucks bad. I quit watching it ! (0, Offtopic)

zymano (581466) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472628)

We need people to tell ARbitron ratings people that you don't watch it.

We eventually get rid of this PHONY sci-fi channel.

It seems its more concerned with stupid CGI monsters than SciFi.

We need everyone to KILL IT . Lets get a real SCIENCE channel on 'BASIC CABLE' with some QUALITY scifi thrown in.

Agree ?

Re:SCI-FI channel sucks bad. I quit watching it ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14472684)

I have TO disagree WITH YOU on this ONE.

Re:SCI-FI channel sucks bad. I quit watching it ! (1)

djgoofywhitekid (930790) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472692)

You can complain to Arbitron all you like. It won't do you much good though. Nielsen Media Research [] runs the television ratings surveys.

Re:SCI-FI channel sucks bad. I quit watching it ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14472738)

thanks ziggy.

Re:SCI-FI channel sucks bad. I quit watching it ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14473097)

Arbitron is for radio. You may want to go back and read some of those "real" science books so you don't sound like an ass when pontificating about how serious a sci-fi guy you are. You are a poser.

Have a nice day.

I used to watch it (3, Insightful)

Kohath (38547) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472631)

The most noteworthy thing about this show is how it's exactly like "The Pretender".

Other Dead Series? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14472642)

I dont mean to beat a dead horse, but what about farscape?

i mean its like they picked up a bunch of other crap shows
to take its place, not to mention it was sci-fi's flag
ship program..

Good stuff finished already? (1)

Wylfing (144940) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472655)

Jan 20?!?!? Does this mean the new Stargate and Battlestar Galactica episodes are already finished?

Hm, well I suppose this could run before Galactica. I am rapidly losing enthusiasm for SG-1 (they had a nearly golden cast until they offed Claudia Black [] , PLEASE bring her back she brought 2/3 of the energy to the show since RDA left), and Atlantis is only so-so, but don't frack with Galactica, man.

Re:Good stuff finished already? (1)

viper432 (589797) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472803)

You will be happy to know she is returning [] .

The Fox Friday Rerun Channel (4, Insightful)

Ray Radlein (711289) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472668)

I eagerly await the remainder of their backwards trek through Fox's collection of excellent prematurely-cancelled Friday night shows. Firefly and John Doe, check: How long before they work their way back to Strange Luck [] and VR.5 [] ?

Oh yes (1)

air (70133) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472676)

Sounds almost like me. I usually have infinite knowledge and no memory of it at the morning.

test (0, Offtopic)

StrongGlad (687909) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472679)

omg it works!!!!1!1

John Doe (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14472709)

Does anybody know if John Doe is hung like a stallion?

now... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14472721)

they need to pick up dark angel.

re-premier??? (2, Insightful)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472726)

surely a contradiction in one word... I think the word we are looking for here is "repeat"...

Correct for Slashdot (1)

The Angry Artist (877090) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472729)

And one more thing: He's a walking encyclopedia. He literally knows every fact on record. John's no psychic or clairvoyant--he can't predict the future. But when it comes to learning anything new, like how to pilot a helicopter, he's a very quick study.

Does this mean he's a walking Wikipedia?

Re:Correct for Slashdot (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14472773)

NO, because unlike Wikipedia, Mr. John Doe is supposedly accurate all the time :-)

Re:Correct for Slashdot (2, Funny) (787057) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472822)

Yes^H^H^HNo^H^HYes^H^HNo^H^HWikipedia is goatse!^H^H^H^HYes^H^HNo^H^HThis Page is a stub

Meant to be funny, by all means, do mod me down :). I do like wikipedia tho

Re:Correct for Slashdot (1)

Gryle (933382) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472904)

Except you can't edit him to make fun of other people.

Paradox? (1)

aaron_ds (711489) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472732)

"... a man with no memory of who he is but, but somehow has infinite knowledge."

But could he microwave a burrito so hot that he couldn't eat it?

I smell a paradox.

9pm ET ? (1)

rossdee (243626) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472761)

Fridays at 9pm (eastern) is the time for Stargate Atlantis, I hope they aren't dropping that.

Hmm I just checked the shedule on and it seems this John Doe show is actually on at 7pm eastern, so its not going to interfere with the normal scifi friday lineup (phew)

Sci-Fi Channel, R.I.P. (4, Insightful)

dada21 (163177) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472763)

I think we need to see this one go away.

We're geeks. We like to be ahead of the game. We like it our way, hold the ketchup and the onions, thank you very much.

In-your-face, take it or leave it TV is dead, or it should be. The horse is beaten, the flies have eaten, it's time to bury it. A la carte TV is so 90's, even if it wasn't really available. The iTunes format is cool. but it isn't quite what we need or want.

AKIMBO is cool, but I'm sure it's plagued with lame shows and whatever "it isn't open source" problems people have with it.

So the answer is where should we go next? I'd love to see viewer funded "television" -- maybe geek television at its finest. Firefly, BsG, hell, even bring back Monty Python with a newer funnier cast. Give us an option -- tell us how much it will cost, how many episodes we can assume to be paying for, ask us what video formats we'd like to see, and then do it. Start a website or a blog or whatever we need to find you. Let us pay for it, in advance, with a contract stipulating some refund if you don't meet the requirements.

I'll put up $500 of my own money, right now, for Firefly to come back. I'd pay $500 for 2 guaranteed seasons (22 episodes per season). I'd cancel cable TV in a heartbeat (I bet we're paying over $1000 a year) and put that money towards 6 or 8 good shows, a la carte. Film them in Canada, give the actors a piece of the action (call them producers, skip the unions) and let's find some good TV. I can't handle anything aimed at the mainstream (maybe L&O: CI on occasion) anymore.

There are 1 million people coming to /. this week (or more?) $50 a year per user is $50 million. This is enough to get 20 shows going for a year.

Why are we still talking about Sci-Fi again, we have money, let's use it. Any 10 of you want to match my $500 and get something started?

Lemon Curry? (1)

absurdist (758409) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472812)

even bring back Monty Python with a newer funnier cast


Re:Lemon Curry? (1)

dada21 (163177) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472834)

I knew that would get someone's attention!

Re:Lemon Curry? (2, Insightful)

thunderbee (92099) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472922)


True. Tie him to the comfy chair, and poke him with the soft cushion!

Re:Sci-Fi Channel, R.I.P. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14473094)

I'm sad no one else would put up money for Firefly. I'd gladly put up $500 for Firefly, compared to most of the cruft on TV now I like the idea of ala carte TV, paid for by the fans. That would be a VERY interesting idea.

Feh (-1, Troll)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472837)

It was good for about five episodes, then it just plummeted like a rock. Although they did kill off theannoying girl. That was ppretty cool. Oh, was that a spoiler. No big loss.

Fox Reveals Doe's Secret (spoiler!) (2, Informative)

mwyner (65962) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472968)

I read about this a couple of months ago, and never knew it about the time. Apparently after the got cancelled, they revealed what was going to happen: []

If you like John Doe, please read (1)

Reikk (534266) | more than 8 years ago | (#14472986)

The bartender guy is evil and doublecrosses John Doe in the end. HAHAHAHA, SUCKASS BITCHES

Same guy on Prison Break (1)

SiliconEntity (448450) | more than 8 years ago | (#14473016)

The actor, Dominic Purcell, also plays the older brother on this season's hit Prison Break - another show with an annoying cliff-hanger last fall. Fortunately it will be on again in the spring but I expect they will leave us hanging before next season.

pretender (2, Insightful)

chigun (770799) | more than 8 years ago | (#14473051)

wasn't this show on NBC before, except called The Pretender?

Sci-Fi, don't pick that up! (1)

EnsilZah (575600) | more than 8 years ago | (#14473081)

You don't know where it's been.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?