I'd never even heard of the show until I stumbled on it on Hulu a few years ago when I was recuperating from a broken leg and bored out of my skull. I didn't watch much TV at all back when it was on.
Only later did I see that it was the subject of such rabid fandom. I can see how it can be a turn-off, but the show itself really grabbed me.
|
Rome (ok, it wasn't cancelled, they didn't want to do it anymore. And there really wasn't much of a cast left. But man I miss it)
This thread is bringing back many memories that in my tears of loss I'd blacked out.
+1 Pirates of Darkwater
+1 Brisco County Jr
+1 Alcatraz (very rough start, which is always bad news)
+1 Clerks (the second episode being the "clip show" was fantastic)
+1 The Tick (live) (did seinfeld better than seinfeld. with superheroes)
+1 Flashforward (I love metaplot. I will forgive a lot if I like the metaplot. The fact that it lost out to V still kills me)
+1 Dresden (I liked the cast, but now that I'm reading the books they definitely needed character rewrites)
Honorable Mentions (+0)
Caprica - I liked it, but I have to agree with MM that it might have worked better in another medium. Or perhaps have had the storyline abridged. It was just very very slow
The Lone Gunmen - I loved this show when it aired. I bought it on DVD when it was released and tried to show it to my friends. They managed to ruin it by pointing out all the places where it was just plain goofy. If you wanted it to be another hour of the X-Files, it failed miserably. I mean really, it was silly. The logic was way out of bounds, even for the X-Files. While it still holds a special place in my heart, I realize that it was really a guilty pleasure for a bad bad show.
Needs to be said:
+1 "every episodic television series should have a "four-episode" run-out clause in its contract, wherein if it gets cancelled, the writers get four episodes to wrap up all the loose endings in a neat and tidy way."
I sometimes wonder if I know the only sane Whedon-fans in the universe, considering how many negative experiences other people seem to have. (Not that I haven't met some crazy ones, but you find crazy folks in any fandom.)
^ this ^
Some have already been mentionned already mentioned:
Alcatraz
Harsh Realm
Firefly
Cliffhangers
DARK SKIES
This was a 1996-97 SF drama series which riffed off THE X-FILES craze without ripping it off. The premise was that Earth in the 1960s was being visited by hostile alien 'greys' and a secret government organisation, Majestic-12, was fighting them. Early on it was discovered that the greys themselves were actually totally benevolent, but a faction of them was being mind-controlled by a second, parasitic alien race (these parasites were also controlling some humans).
The idea was that the show would run for five seasons, with each of the first four seasons covering a full decade and the fifth season spanning just a few days over the millennium when the alien menace would finally be halted. The show was notable for kicking off the careers of Eric Close and Jeri Ryan (who was immediately recruited to STAR TREK: VOYAGER after DARK SKIES was cancelled) and starring the awesome JT Walsh, who sadly passed away a couple of years after the show ended.
Great premise, great idea, sadly left unfulfilled.
AMERICAN GOTHIC
This was a horror show, produced by Sam Raimi, about the sherrif of a small-time town who is possibly either Satan or some kind of demonic being (though very subtly done), who collects favours from people in return for doing them services. Gary Cole was excellent as the sherrif. The show was notable for its ever-shifting focus - at least two characters are presented as the protagonist or 'hero' for several episodes and then both fall by the wayside - and it's deep-seated cynicism, not to mention its hot and sweaty southern gothic vibe. There are very vague echoes of it in TRUE BLOOD, but GOTHIC was frankly a smarter show.
It completely missed its real calling. As a HBO or other cable show it'd have been brilliant, and probably lasted several seasons.
Oh, Nm, googled it. Seems this UltraViolet was a british vampire thing done back in 1998?Yes, it was a Brit mini-series. It was quite good. But you can't exactly count it because it was never intended to go beyond one story arc. The BBC does mini-series like that (and Jeckyl, which was quite good).
ULTRAVIOLET - basically BUFFY meets THE WIRE - was actually intended to go for more than one season. However, Channel 4 - it wasn't made by the BBC - chose to sit on the concept for a while and the producer/director/writer had moved onto other projects (he later worked on the new DOCTOR WHO for a while). He's since said he actually prefers the show as a one-off, as its course would have been fairly predictable once you knew the vampires' masterplan (revealed in the final episode, and it's a good one).
The series was really notable for introducing the world to Idris 'now in everything' Elba, and immediately giving him two vampire kills that are hands-down more badass than anything on BUFFY or ANGEL.
I didn't find it anything spectacular, and in several ways a total ripoff of Outlaw Star*
To be fair, FIREFLY is a total hodgepodge of several of Whedon's key influences. There's a LOT of BLAKE'S SEVEN in there (Whedon has said in interviews he watched the show when at boarding school in the UK in the early 1980s), and obviously a fair bit of Han Solo as well.
Rome (ok, it wasn't cancelled, they didn't want to do it anymore. And there really wasn't much of a cast left. But man I miss it)
They did cancel it. ROME was supposed to last for seven seasons as a multi-generational saga consisting of several arcs. The first arc - Caesar/Pompey/Brutus/Antony/Claudius/Vorenus/Pullo etc - was supposed to last three seasons. They had enough warning to wrap it into two, so at least it got a proper ending. However, there were supposed to be two further arcs, one dealing with the story of Jesus from the Roman POV and a never-detailed further one, which some have guessed is basically the same ground as I, CLAUDIUS.
HBO actually recently got the rights to the I, CLAUDIUS novels and some of the same team who made ROME are working on it, suggesting that the idea may not be entirely dead in the water.
Oh yes, +1 to Pirates of Dark Water and to the Tick.
Also, don't hate me, but I'd kind of like to see another season of Cleopatra 2525, but only if they'd killed Cleopatra off and renamed the show "Kick Ass Cyber Adventures with Hel and Sarge."
(If you haven't seen Cleopatra 2525, it is awful but in a hilaribad kind of way. And the backdrop world is very cool... derivative of other dystopian sci fis, but very cool. The minor problem of it is you have to entirely ignore the existence of the main character to enjoy it, which is actually easier to do than you might think. Also, it has Gina Torres in tight polyvinyl cyber armor in it. This is part of why it's easy to ignore the main character.)
I... Feel so less alone.
Firefly. Firefly. Firefly. 1000 X firefly.Joss would love to bring it back.Oh dear freaking lord. Now my friends will never shut up.
Firefly was a show where the fandom utterly ruined it for me. It wasn't a bad show in itself--I didn't find it anything spectacular, and in several ways a total ripoff of Outlaw Star*--but its characters were mostly likeable and it had some fun stories, and it was a clever take on a space opera (even if not original). For its own sake, I do wish its network had treated it better and it had the original airing it had deserved.
But OH MY GOD its fans DO NOT SHUT UP and never stop getting in your face about how awesome it is and how much I MUST LOVE IT OR DIE which just makes me want to punch them, Joss Whedon, and anyone ever involved in the show in the face. (Note: DeathQuaker has crazy levels of PMS today so will tend to threaten violence over the drop of a hat. Seriously, do not drop that f*#*ing hat. Or it may at least cause her to be cranky and exaggerate a lot.)
Hyberbole aside, I find the fanaticism irritating and it makes it hard for me to enjoy it.
I settle for when people bring it up, talking about how my favorite scene in Serenity is when Wash died, how much I loved his shocked face and the little blood gurgle that followed when they realized he'd been impaled (which is in fact my favorite part of the movie. The emotional manipulativeness of that scene is gorgeous). That won't shut the fans up, but it's fun to watch them splutter. It's the one scene most Browncoats hate with a passion, and they don't know what to do when I'm praising Joss Whedon's amazing artistry but it's regarding a character they didn't want to see die. (And yet when I complain about Tara or Fred or Anya I'm told that's just what was supposed to happen, and I should shut up and put up with it. Did I say I hated...
Alphas ... I really liked the show and the direction it was going. Granted it ran two seasons ... still really liked it.
Waitwaitwait
They canceled Alphas?
SYFYYYYYYYYYYYY!
Seriously though f+@# them.
Alphas ... I really liked the show and the direction it was going. Granted it ran two seasons ... still really liked it.Waitwaitwait
They canceled Alphas?
SYFYYYYYYYYYYYY!
Seriously though f*&* them.
It just wasn't getting the ratings, unfortunately. People love to b%##! about syfy, but when a quality show is on the air, they forget to watch.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Syfy lost my interest when they gave their reason for wanting to change their name.
You actually bought that?
Dood, it's business. Syfy is copyrightable. SciFi isn't. It's just that simple.
Don't care. If they didn't mean it they shouldn't have said it. The fact that they did is enough to persuade me "Okay, you don't want my business. Looks like you get what you want."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm with both of you. I understand why the SF channel wanted a more copyrightable logo, and from that perspective, it makes sense.
At the same time, I agree with Orthos that in the press that they gave, they basically spat at sci-fi lovers, the people who kind of sort of gave them their business. Honestly, if their press release said, "We want a logo we can copyright" I would have respected them a hell of a lot more. You don't tell the people who are the source of your success you don't want them any more.
Also, "Syfy" looks like a nickname for an STD. If they were gonna rebrand, they wasted money on whoever came up with that.
I'm with both of you. I understand why the SF channel wanted a more copyrightable logo, and from that perspective, it makes sense.
At the same time, I agree with Orthos that in the press that they gave, they basically spat at sci-fi lovers, the people who kind of sort of gave them their business. Honestly, if their press release said, "We want a logo we can copyright" I would have respected them a hell of a lot more. You don't tell the people who are the source of your success you don't want them any more.
Also, "Syfy" looks like a nickname for an STD. If they were gonna rebrand, they wasted money on whoever came up with that.
never said it was a smart move.. But syfys watchers have a tendency to shoot themselves in the foot. It's not because they are dumb or bad people oraanything. It's that this hobby attracts a lot of strong willed, intelligent people, who are eager to call authority figures out on their bs, which results in a fan base that can be impossible to satisfy fully-if at all. I guarantee that by keeping Orthos (for example), they would have lost others and vice versa. Personally, I just try to support the shows I like.
The Cape, it was fun, loved Chess.
6 seasons and a movie, eh?
Rubicon and Terriers. Too good to live.
It just wasn't getting the ratings, unfortunately. People love to b#~** about syfy, but when a quality show is on the air, they forget to watch.
Yeah. =/
I guess I'm somewhat guilty of that since I didn't watch it when it came on, I usually DVR everything and watch it on the weekends when I have time.
Stations should really start checking that stuff for their ratings more often, who knows how many people watch them on the official site when they put episodes up there or on DVR that can't catch it when it airs.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Part of the problem with that is that people who record a show don't really matter for the measure of ratings. Most people who record skip the commercials, which is what keeps most television on the air. Ratings are more about setting the price for ads than who watches the show.Yeah. =/
I guess I'm somewhat guilty of that since I didn't watch it when it came on, I usually DVR everything and watch it on the weekends when I have time.
Stations should really start checking that stuff for their ratings more often, who knows how many people watch them on the official site when they put episodes up there or on DVR that can't catch it when it airs.
Wow, then I guess my viewing habits count for nothing. I go to bed early, so the DVR is my friend.
At the same time, I agree with Orthos that in the press that they gave, they basically spat at sci-fi lovers, the people who kind of sort of gave them their business. Honestly, if their press release said, "We want a logo we can copyright" I would have respected them a hell of a lot more. You don't tell the people who are the source of your success you don't want them any more.
This, to a T. I would have been fine with a simple rebranding for the sake of something they can claim as their own. I'm okay with that. It's the excuse - the unnecessary excuse at that - of "we want to get away from geeks" that told me off.
Part of the problem with that is that people who record a show don't really matter for the measure of ratings. Most people who record skip the commercials, which is what keeps most television on the air. Ratings are more about setting the price for ads than who watches the show.Yeah. =/
I guess I'm somewhat guilty of that since I didn't watch it when it came on, I usually DVR everything and watch it on the weekends when I have time.
Stations should really start checking that stuff for their ratings more often, who knows how many people watch them on the official site when they put episodes up there or on DVR that can't catch it when it airs.
That's not entirely true, although viewed-on-air is still seen as most valuable.
They do take into account DVR and viewed online into evaluating a success of the show.
And one reason we see more product placement in TV shows is precisely because of online and DVR viewership--you might block or fast-forward through ads, but you don't want to fastforward through the middle of an episode--if Bob and Sally are expositing important info while they are taking the Pause that Refreshes (TM), then you'll get the Coke ad whether you want it or not.
(Yes, I know that Coke slogan is like 60 years old or something.)
But it also means that those viewerships are important because they will see the product placed ads.
Rubicon and Terriers. Too good to live.
I loved the way Terriers ended, though. Such delicious ambiguity. It left it open enough for a second season, but also allowed the viewer to imagine several possible future timelines.
Rubicon and Terriers. Too good to live.
The thing about Rubicon was, it came on around the same time as Walking Dead, and I found the zombie wasteland less frightening.
It's very depressing how much the list of suggestions here resembles the contents of my DVD shelf.
Anyhow, a couple of additions from me:
In the 'shows of the recent past' category: Kings
In the 'shows of a bygone era' category: Alien Nation.
And I'll just say: FIREFLY!
Because all the cool kids are doing it.
Heroes.
Not only was it cancelled, but it's weird how no one ever talked about it again after the first season, almost like I have selective deafness.
If we're ignoring horrible 2nd seasons, then I nominate The Loop.
It was a sitcom on Fox about a 23 year old airline executive, trying to work as a responsible adult during the day and partying like a buck wild kid at night. And hilariousness ensued.
Jeremiah.
Ay least I THINK it was only one season, though it may have been two.
Heroes.
Not only was it cancelled, but it's weird how no one ever talked about it again after the first season, almost like I have selective deafness.
That's because the second season was terrible.
Heroes.
Not only was it cancelled, but it's weird how no one ever talked about it again after the first season, almost like I have selective deafness.
Well, cancelled it may have been, but at least it went out on a great note in its final episode. That final fight in NYC against Sylar, where everyone came together, worked in unison, and killed him? And the lingering shot of his dead body, lying there? I mean, MASSIVE points to the writers for having the balls to kill off their main villain for good, no matter how charismatic the actor and how clearly in love with him the writing staff was, instead of setting him up as some recurring unbeatable menace (if there had been more than one season, of course) that would only get less scary and more tiresome over time.
And it was AWESOME how Claire was instrumental in winning that fight too, thus bringing the whole 'save the cheerleader, save the world' prophecy to a naturally developed conclusion.
Jeremiah.
Ay least I THINK it was only one season, though it may have been two.
Loved Jeremiah.
Terra Nova and The Secret Circle.
Strange Luck, with D. B. Sweeny. Awesome show.
|
|
Wow, then I guess my viewing habits count for nothing. I go to bed early, so the DVR is my friend.
Part of the problem with that is that people who record a show don't really matter for the measure of ratings. Most people who record skip the commercials, which is what keeps most television on the air. Ratings are more about setting the price for ads than who watches the show.
Here's a thought: would there be less shows on this list if these shows had their ads replaced with a per-viewing cost? Whether you watch it on tv, amazon, hulu, netflix, there were a small surcharge to the makers of the show? The networks can air what they want, but as long as the makers get enough money the show continues to air in a medium such at netflix. In short, instead of live-viewership determining ratings determining money, the equation simply becomes viewings of any kind translating directly into money.
And would you as the viewer be willing to pay a little extra if it means that more of your pet shows continue to be made.
Because frankly, we need to come up with another economic model. Live-viewership is going to continue to dwindle and we will be left with only shows that are minimal cost: Jeopardy, Ghost Hunters, and Swamp People
Not only was it cancelled, but it's weird how no one ever talked about it again after the first season, almost like I have selective deafness.
What was more concerning was the Irish girl Peter meets in the second season, who gets taken into an alternate timeline and then left there, and then apparently evaporates when that timeline is prevented from taking place and no-one ever mentions it again. The writers even admitted they were completely stumped on how to handle that situation, so they just ignored it.
** spoiler omitted **
For example, if that were the new situation, I certainly wouldn't be paying the monthly access + content costs that I do today... hell, I wouldn't even pay a fraction of those costs if I were being also hammered show-by-show.
And, when you say a "little extra", how much is a "little extra"? With that, how many more of my 'pet shows' would be made? Would I get an iron-clad guarantee that they'd stay on the air for a set number of years? If the answers to those were 'lots' and 'yes', then I might be open for discussion. Otherwise...
Not that I don't disagree that the economic model needs to change. It just needs to change on a massive scale. (Enough to be unrecognizable.)
I would certainly be happy to pay for individual shows, but then that's all I'd be paying for. No additional access fee (beyond one fee - internet, likely - that I pay today), no fee for anything that I don't want to watch. And I would certainly expect that what I end up paying monthly would be equal to or less than what I pay today (which is for a bunch of channels, all-I-can-watch, DVR'd when needed). Throw in the guarantees above, and then I'd be willing to pay more than what my monthly total ends up today.
Late to the party but....
wait for it....
Firefly™
Past that, Space: Above and Beyond (don't kill me :) ). The sunday after football timeslot killed this IMHO.
|
|
** spoiler omitted **** spoiler omitted **
Your last paragraph is an excellent point. Yes, you get lots of channels for the money you pay. But how much of that do you actually watch? The cable company doesn't buy individual channels, which is why they don't offer them that way. In order to get USA you have to get TNT, etc. Most of my monthly payment isn't going anywhere near shows I actually want to watch (hence the common complaint of 800 channels and nothing to watch). With the stranglehold that the sports industry has over cable, a HUGE portion is going towards ESPN and other sport oriented programming, and I've never sat down and watched a single game. I have to believe that if we only paid for what we watched, good programming would come back. The sports fans might lose out, but I could care less.
Late to the party but....
wait for it....
Firefly™
Past that, Space: Above and Beyond (don't kill me :) ). The sunday after football timeslot killed this IMHO.
It's okay, I forgive you. ;-)
** spoiler omitted **** spoiler omitted **** spoiler omitted **
I would also like a 'only pay for what you watch' model if for nothing else than to end cross-subsidization and to let the free market play out and let channels (and, someday in the future, shows themselves) live and die on their own merits.
But, we need to be aware of the consequences of all this. Like I said, any 'future deal' will have to be better than what I have right now (as a mix of content vs. cost).
Yeah - big change is needed. Someday I foresee us just paying for a big 'pipe' to the home, and there'll be no difference between internet and TV... You pay for the pipe (access) and then pay individually for "content".
It lasted 2 seasons, but still died too early:
Dead Like Me.
It's available on DVD and is pretty good. I've heard there might have been a movie as well, but if so I've never seen it.
Don't bother with the movie (yes it exists), theres no Mandy Patinkin. Just enjoy the series.
Greg
