Slashdot Mirror


Spielberg's Taken

A few people submitted asking for an open discussion for Spielberg's Taken miniseries that premiered last night on SciFi last night. I watched it, and I gotta say I dug it, and set Tivo up to snag the rest of it. I wish that they were spacing it out a bit more (in terms of scheduling, not in terms of leaving the Earth's atmosphere ;) What do folks think?

417 comments

  1. WHO TOOK HIM!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give him back! Now! We need more of his old movies updated to be more politically correct!!1

    1. Re:WHO TOOK HIM!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guns in to walkie-talkies? Not as bad as Greedo shooting first.

    2. Re:WHO TOOK HIM!?! by Wakko+Warner · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Could they edit the Nazis out of "Indiana Jones"?

      - A.P.

      --
      "Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
    3. Re:WHO TOOK HIM!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need more of his old movies updated to be more politically correct!!

      Are you trying to tell me Jurassic Park isn't supposed to end with them realising that the dinosaurs just have agression problems and that they can live happily with the humans after all?

    4. Re:WHO TOOK HIM!?! by Ponty · · Score: 2

      As everyone knows, that movie isn't about Nazis. Due to budget constraints, they used Nazis instead of terrorist aliens. We feel that the new edit is closer to Mr. Spielberg's original vision, and Mr. Spielberg is unavailable for interviews.

    5. Re:WHO TOOK HIM!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they can digitally replace guns with flashlights, I'm sure that they can change those Nazi uniforms to something fashionable like pink tutus, KKK robes or MIB/Matrix dark suits with shades. Maybe all three!

    6. Re:WHO TOOK HIM!?! by erat · · Score: 4, Funny

      Who cares who took HIM?

      I want to know who took his PRESENTS. I mean, every time the show returned from a commercial break, the "Steven Spielberg Presents Taken" newsflash would pop up.

      Poor guy, it being Hannukah and all (okay, YOU try to spell it...).

    7. Re:WHO TOOK HIM!?! by Psion · · Score: 2

      Grrr...I've been cracking that joke ever since last night in person and on a bunch of discussion sites, and all I've been met with are blank stares and chirping crickets.

      AND THEN YOU GET MODERATED "FUNNY" FOR IT.

      *sigh*

      Oh well, maybe if I make some cracks about abusive boyfriends, I'll get a snicker...

  2. Taken No, Stargate SG-1 Yes. by kperrier · · Score: 2, Funny

    I want my Stargate. Will someone please take Taken to some other day of the week?

    Kent

    1. Re:Taken No, Stargate SG-1 Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe it is on EVERY other day of the week, too. Don't worry, we'll get SG1 back soon... although I do miss the 1am replays.

    2. Re:Taken No, Stargate SG-1 Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go SG-1!! X-303!!!!

    3. Re:Taken No, Stargate SG-1 Yes. by calags · · Score: 1

      I'm going through Lexx withdrawal right now...

      --
      Never attribute to stupidity what can be construed as a monopoly preservation tactic.
    4. Re:Taken No, Stargate SG-1 Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was sooooo taken with the media hype...I didn't watch it.

      That at spending 2 hours for 10 days in a row would be hard to fit into my schedule.

      Sounds like Speilberg wants to sell a 10 dvd set for $99.99.

  3. Oh great, Slashdot likes it.. by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... that means it'll be cancelled soon.

    1. Re:Oh great, Slashdot likes it.. by Xpilot · · Score: 2

      Somebody buy the domain name "savetaken.com" quick :)

      --
      "Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
    2. Re:Oh great, Slashdot likes it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Its a 10 part(2 hours each) miniseries, not a weekly show.

    3. Re:Oh great, Slashdot likes it.. by GreggBert · · Score: 1

      I would but then it's probably already, um... taken.

      --


      If you don't understand anything I post, please accept that I ate paste as a small boy...
    4. Re:Oh great, Slashdot likes it.. by Schnapple · · Score: 2
      it'll be cancelled soon
      well given that its a miniseries, it'll be off the air due to natural causes soon enough.
    5. Re:Oh great, Slashdot likes it.. by chrislike · · Score: 1

      Its not that it'll be canceled, it'll just be slashdotted.

      Either that, we won't get to it.

    6. Re:Oh great, Slashdot likes it.. by Ponty · · Score: 3, Funny

      The correct term for which, as all TV aficionados know, is miniseries rot. Originally, all television series were planned as miniseries, but the scourge or miniseries rot kicked in and none of them lasted for more than fifteen episodes or so. Finally, scientists from NBC and Bell Labs, working together, discovered how to prevent miniseries rot. The problem is that their discovery was both very expensive and very unpredictable: there was a 75% chance that any product treated against miniseries rot would instead turn out to be total crap. So the television producers of the last sixty years have faced a dilemma: they can produce short-lived, high quality programs or they can produce longer-lasting programs that cost a lot and have a 75% chance of being "Emeril." I, for one, am glad that I don't have to make that decision.

    7. Re:Oh great, Slashdot likes it.. by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      "well given that its a miniseries, it'll be off the air due to natural causes soon enough."

      Well I'm glad you were around to clear that up. I apologize to everybody who thought my joke was funny.

    8. Re:Oh great, Slashdot likes it.. by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 2

      75% percent? If only 75% of TV series were crap I'd be amazed! I'd place the number more at 90% or higher.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    9. Re:Oh great, Slashdot likes it.. by stinky+wizzleteats · · Score: 2

      Although this is a miniseries, I have been thinking about why shows we like fail and why shows like Just Shoot Me succeed wildly.

      I think it basically boils down to one issue - shows we like are not conducive to advertising. The most effective TV show is one where you do not "feel" the difference between the show and the commercials. You sit quietly in alpha state, and slurp up whatever comes out of the TV. Thinking is counterproductive to this effect. Shows like Just Shoot Me or Friends are perfect examples of this phenomenon. It is physically painful to think while watching these shows.

      I tend to watch scifi and documentaries. I mercilessly channel surf to avoid even a second of commercial time, and am never "caught" unaware that I am sitting watching commercials.

      I think the reality is that television programming is not a matter of entertainment/information in exchange for watching ads, but a matter of producing content just interesting enough for the average person to watch, but not so interesting that they resist the commercials. Quality, therfore, is ancillary to the entire process.

    10. Re:Oh great, Slashdot likes it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't watch it. I can't even tolerate the commercials for it and the last two weeks of stupid programming about "alien abductions" and crap leading up to it.

      Seriously. The "alien" thing is getting old. So is the "government conspiracy to cover up aliens" thing. Look -- X-Files was already done. Time for something new.

      Now, what I *would* love to see is a show where they have people who believe they were abducted and probed mixed with people who believe in John Edwards and talking to dead people and ghosts and all that crap and stick interview them -- them make fun of them Daily Show style.

      Now THAT, I would watch.

    11. Re:Oh great, Slashdot likes it.. by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      Here's the formula for you:

      ([number of shows on television] - 4) / [number of shows on television] * 100

      Simpsons, Sopranos, Junkyard Wars, Iron Chef....
      and actually all four of those are in diferent stages of decline.

      The best thing on TV in the past 3 years was Band of Brothers, which just came out of DVD. It's the best Chrismas present you can get a military history buff.

      -B

    12. Re:Oh great, Slashdot likes it.. by CableModemSniper · · Score: 1

      Mmm alpha waves....I think you're right there. Friends or Just Shoot Me is a great way to turn the brain off. Just kinda sit there its like sleeping while preteneding you are doing something.

      --
      Why not fork?
    13. Re:Oh great, Slashdot likes it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *Your* joke? That was *my* joke, you bastard!

      Someone let Cmdr Taco know: this son of a bitch stole my nick.

    14. Re:Oh great, Slashdot likes it.. by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 2

      "*Your* joke? That was *my* joke, you bastard!

      Someone let Cmdr Taco know: this son of a bitch stole my nick."


      That'd be funny, if I were an AC. Heh.

    15. Re:Oh great, Slashdot likes it.. by Gluteus+Minimus · · Score: 1

      Iron Chef has been cancelled in Japan for a few years now, so you can't really say it's in decline. Once a year, they'll do a special but those are actually a little better than the regular episodes.

      Unless you're counting Iron Chef USA, which... ugh. It's not Iron Chef!

      --
      My sig's name is Sigmund, but you may call it "Siggy."
  4. Not worth watching by fgb · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    I watched the first hour and gave up. It was stupid and dull.

    1. Re:Not worth watching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Did it ever occur to you that the first hour of the first episode is more an introduction than anything? I haven't seen it yet, but I know enough from past experience with scifi to give the show some time to develop before giving up on it completely.

      I'd wager your type of attitude is why FireFly isn't doing so well - its first couple episodes were relatively uninteresting, however it's really picked up since. But the masses of impatient Americans tuned out because the first 10 minutes of the first episode weren't utterly spectacular. First impressions aren't everything, you know.

    2. Re:Not worth watching by saider · · Score: 1


      I saw it also and it failed to capture my attention. I realize that it is only 10% of the whole picture, but it looks like they are trying to tie together all the UFO stories into one cohesive plot. It seemed too fragmented to me.

      I did like the opening scene, tho.

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    3. Re:Not worth watching by RatBastard · · Score: 2

      They teach you how to write a hook in writing classes for a reason. You only have a few seconds to get people's attention. That is a well established fact.

      --
      Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
    4. Re:Not worth watching by kableh · · Score: 1

      Agreed, on both counts. It was mildly entertaining, but reminded my of Close Encounters, one of the best scifi flicks ever, and X Files.

    5. Re:Not worth watching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tried to watch it and fell asleep. Later, I woke up the second time it was on (around 2:00 AM) and stilll couldn't watch it. It was soooooooo boring. I kept waiting for them to get to the good special effects or open up some of the mystery or history of the aliens... no... what do I get? some alien that looks like a human levitating a little girl in a room and pretending it's a magic trick... ooooohkayyyyyy... then, later a guy beats up some girl over a piece of metal from the crash & uses it to manipulate his father into putting him on the alien military project... woohoo. Wake me up when something more like the movie "Fire In The Sky" comes on

    6. Re:Not worth watching by Oliver+Wendell+Jones · · Score: 2

      Gee, a Steven Spielberg movie about UFOs and it reminded you of Close Encounters... who would have ever thought that was going to happen

      --
      A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
    7. Re:Not worth watching by kableh · · Score: 2

      Heh, the part that reminded me of Close Encounters was the guy going nuts, boarding up his house, scaring his wife, etc. Smacked of CEOTTK.

      I understand its a well worn topic, but I was hoping for something new and exciting. X Files was for the first few seasons. I'll probably give it another chance tonight though =)

    8. Re:Not worth watching by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 2

      They teach you how to write a hook in writing classes for a reason. You only have a few seconds to get people's attention.

      Did you watch the first two minutes of Taken? It was one hell of a hook. I wasn't actually that interested in watching, but when I saw the air battle over Germany and how it ended, I planted my butt on the couch and watched the rest of the two-hour episode.

      That's a hook, friend.

      --

      I write in my journal
    9. Re:Not worth watching by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 2

      reminded my of Close Encounters

      At this point you should be thinking, "Hey, Band of Brothers was an awful lot like Saving Private Ryan. And From the Earth to the Moon was a lot like Apollo 13."

      Maybe the resemblance-- thematically and visually-- between Close Encounters and Taken is no accident. Just maybe.

      --

      I write in my journal
    10. Re:Not worth watching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      like a boring episode of x-files. Nothing new here, move along.

  5. Will they reair it? by Julius+X · · Score: 2, Funny

    I missed the first episode, does anyone know if they'll re-air it? I can't seem to find the info on SciFi's site.

    --

    -Julius X
    remove "-whatkindofspamdoyoutakemefor-" from email to send
    1. Re:Will they reair it? by LocutusCU · · Score: 1

      They air it @ 7 EST before the second part tonight.

    2. Re:Will they reair it? by Xcruciate · · Score: 1

      It is pretty much the ONLY thing on on SciFi during the next five (now four) nights. It looks like they air it consecutively two or three times a night.

      --
      It's like "looking busy" at your employment - it's actually easier to do real work than to fake it. - bmo
    3. Re:Will they reair it? by brownj_685 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes. They will reair episode 1 on the follwing days and times:

      SciFi EAST: All time in EST

      03-DEC-02 7:00PM
      08-DEC-02 11:00AM
      14-DEC-02 11:00AM

      More complet chart of airings.

      Date 7pm 9pm 11pm
      02-DEC-02 -- 1 1
      03-DEC-02 1 2 2
      04-DEC-02 2 3 3
      05-DEC-02 3 4 4
      06-DEC-02 4 5 5
      09-DEC-02 5 6 6
      10-DEC-02 6 7 7
      11-DEC-02 7 8 8
      12-DEC-02 8 9 9
      13-DEC-02 9 10 10

      Also Note on:

      07-DEC-02 and 08-DEC-02 and 14-DEC-02 they will be showing episodes 1-5 in order from 11am to 9pm

      on 15-DEC-02 they will show episodes 6-10 in order from 11am to 9pm.

      I hope this helps answer the airing question.

    4. Re:Will they reair it? by bodino · · Score: 1

      Sci-Fi Schedule Botsays that Saturday, the 7th, they'll show the first 5 episodes back to back (10 hours worth)

    5. Re:Will they reair it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      my vcr is broken for record...no tivo...also missed the first few episodes of 24 second season...

      am i the only one who just waits for Blockbuster DVD a year later?

    6. Re:Will they reair it? by LeBain · · Score: 1
      Is December sweeps month or something?

      I sorta liked the 1st hour of last nite's episode, but it ran past bed time (yes, I have a day job!) so I couldn't watch the whole thing. I wish they had made this into a regular season with one 1-hour show per week, rather than this 'drinking from the fire hose' schedule.

      --
      Give serendipity a chance.
    7. Re:Will they reair it? by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 2

      Dude, VCRs are like, $12 now.

    8. Re:Will they reair it? by ElectroBot · · Score: 1

      It's available on USENET

      alt.binaries.multimedia, alt.binaries.multimedia.scifi - SD-6/SVCD/WS version
      alt.binaries.multimedia.scifi - some other VCD version

    9. Re:Will they reair it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually, they repeat the new episode each night 3 times...

  6. Boring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was almost bored to tears. I'll watch it again tonight, but if it isn't better, that will be the end. I thought it was slow going. But then again, I've never been much for mini series

    1. Re:Boring by Archfeld · · Score: 2

      I agree, given that it was intro I am going to give it another try as well but unless it REALLY picks up.....

      --
      errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  7. How long? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many episodes is this miniseries...stuff happened in the first one, but barely tuned the viewer into what was going on. At the pace they are going they are going to need like 4 more episodes i figure.

    1. Re:How long? by derch · · Score: 1

      Something I read today said 10 episodes.

  8. What do folks think? by tmark · · Score: 5, Funny

    I was absolutely Taken by it.
    (cymbal crash)
    Thank you, I'll be here all week.

    1. Re:What do folks think? by cybermace5 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Cymbal crash, eh?

      I thought it was "BU-DUM-CHING!" or just (rimshot).

      But then, a cymbal is kind of like a gong. So maybe you were going for more of an Oriental atmosphere. Sort of like your comment was the wisdom of an ancient Zen master.

      "Meditate on this my students, and learn the wisdom I speak. Why did the boy throw a clock into the air?"

      Four hours pass....

      "Students, you have meditated long enough, and the answer will be revealed. It is because the boy wanted to see time fly."

      GONG: BWAAASSSHHHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhh......

      "Thank you. I will be here all decade."

      --
      ...
    2. Re:What do folks think? by rem1313 · · Score: 1

      so where can i download it? :) stupid riaa hippies - there is no link on their homepage..

    3. Re:What do folks think? by syrinx · · Score: 2

      lol, that is great. if i could mod you up to +6 i would. :)

      --
      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
    4. Re:What do folks think? by ecloud · · Score: 2

      The name is cymballic.

    5. Re:What do folks think? by Sargondai · · Score: 1

      See? There's the typical American bias again.

      It's obviously a symbol-crash in the original poster's home country.

      Why don't you try traveling a bit and quit forcing your American-centric views on everyone else. ;)

    6. Re:What do folks think? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, I gotta ask... how did this HORRIBLE (and OBVIOUS) pun get modded so far up?

      I mean, do moderators read a joke and mod it up if it makes them say "Oh my GOD, the pain, the PAAAIN"?

      (Fuck you slashdot, for making me log in to post anonymously)

    7. Re:What do folks think? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You got a 5 for this? Christ on crutches.

      BT

    8. Re:What do folks think? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      very gong-show...

  9. i can't believe it by tps12 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I watched it, and I gotta say I dug it, and set Tivo up to snag the rest of it.

    So you'll watch it without commercials, the Sci-Fi Channel will lose money on the show, and in a few months you'll be running a story about how a group of fans are raising money to keep it on the air...incredible.

    --

    Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
    1. Re:i can't believe it by dex22 · · Score: 1

      If you have a Tivo and get the SciFi channel, you're paying either DirecTV or a cable company to receive the channel. DirecTV and cable companies pay the channel to distribute the programming on their network, so SciFi channel gets paid.

      In fact, I think it is offensive that I pay over $50/month to see these channels, and then have to pay again by watching advertising - they're making me pay twice! I'm subsidising all the people who pay only once! Argh!

      I mean really. If I pay $50, and half of that goes to the channels, and 25% of my viewing is the SciFi channel, well, I'm paying them $6.25/month. And as I have a TiVo, they KNOW which channels I watch and can credit the correct channels and pay accordingly.

      Does anyone have any actual figures on this?

    2. Re:i can't believe it by m1a1 · · Score: 1

      SciFi channel doesn't even know if he's watching it or not. Let alone with or without commercials (unless he has a nielsen box of course).

    3. Re:i can't believe it by Java+Pimp · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm not gonna steal programming...

      I'll set up my VCR timer to tape it. And I already broke the Fwd button off my remote! And set a timer lock on my refrigerator so I can't make a sandwich during commercial breaks. I know every time I watch a commercial $0.07 is automatically drafted from my wallet and given to sci-fi cause I know the advertizers didn't already pay them for the air time. I don't want to see sci-fi lose any money now.

      I wonder... since skipping commercials is stealing, is it also stealing to watch the commercials with no intention of buying the product? I mean really, for the advertizers to get my money, I've got to buy the product, right?

      --
      Ascalante: Your bride is over 3,000 years old.
      Kull: She told me she was 19!
    4. Re:i can't believe it by joshsisk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unless he is in a neilson family, no one can tell if he watches the commercials or not...

    5. Re:i can't believe it by jhines0042 · · Score: 2, Funny

      So what you're saying is that if I set up my Tivo to record a show and then I watch it once and the commercials 47,000 times that the show will suddenly become profitable and they'll split it off? ;-)

      --
      42 - So long and thanks for all the fish.
    6. Re:i can't believe it by Sheetrock · · Score: 2
      The cable/satellite fee subsidises the content to a degree, but it certainly doesn't cover the actual costs. If you want some actual figures, Seinfeld actors were getting something like $1 million/episode a piece. Likewise with Friends actors. Airing sports programs is ridiculously expensive largely because the franchises know the carriers will pick up the costs from sponsors.

      Right now, the average cost/viewer for a channel works out to about $23,000 for a year. As you can see, while skipping commercials wouldn't fit a reasonable person's definition of piracy, it is important for sponsors to maintain confidence in the system or the whole thing will collapse like the Internet did in 1999.

      --

      Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
      -- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.




    7. Re:i can't believe it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it wouldn't matter either way. The show would still get his rating points if he recorded it whether he watched the commercials later on or not.

    8. Re:i can't believe it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I skipped the commercials too.
      First set I went to the bathroom, second, I let the dog out, put the dinner away and got my lunch ready for today, third I yelled at the kids to get in the shower and took out the trash, forth I was browsing through new usenet headers and fifth I setting up downloads and putting kerosene in the heater. I guess they lost my money as well.

      I hope they don't pass laws banning those normal daily functions!
      In all honesty, I don't get home until 7:00-7:30pm. With my wife working nights and I've two school age kids to administer, I barely have time to even sit down. Watching a tv show uninterupted is not an option so I use the commercial time for my time. TIVO or no TIVO.

    9. Re:i can't believe it by timeOday · · Score: 2
      The cable/satellite fee subsidises the content to a degree, but it certainly doesn't cover the actual costs. If you want some actual figures, Seinfeld actors were getting something like $1 million/episode a piece. Likewise with Friends actors. Airing sports programs is ridiculously expensive largely because the franchises know the carriers will pick up the costs from sponsors.
      ...thus decreasing advertising revenue will cut program costs.

      Is Football any better when the venues are named after companies and the players wear advertising? No. Is "Friends" any better than it was 8 years ago when it was produced for 10% the cost? No. The only "purpose" served by wasting 10 million man-hours on Friends commercials every week is to convince some one-hit wonders that they're worth $1e6 per week. TiVo is doing a real service to society.

      I'd rather have a smaller number of commercial-free channels (like HBO) fighting for my hard-earned Cable TV dollar. Don't worry, "Joey" is set for life no matter what happens.

    10. Re:i can't believe it by Nutcase · · Score: 2
      it is important for sponsors to maintain confidence in the system or the whole thing will collapse like the Internet did in 1999.

      Yeah, I really miss that internet thing. To think, It's been 3 years since it collapsed. It sure is a shame.

      Sarcasm aside, if confidence is the only thing holding a system together, maybe it's time for it to collapse.

    11. Re:i can't believe it by stinky+wizzleteats · · Score: 2

      ...will collapse like the Internet did in 1999.

      The Internet collapsed? That must make you a figment of my imagination.

      Seriously, though. The Internet did not collapse. The get rich quick by getting in on the ground floor of the next Yahoo business model collapsed, but the Internet itself seems to be doing quite well. The business model in question never really produced results, even in The Great Hayday, so confidence was the only driving force in the absurd gold rush of tech prospecting. Mass media advertising is a different beast. Results are what drives it; not confidence. As people's methods of acquiring information and entertainment change, the advertising industry will change with it. The "no free lunch" mantra of the disaffected post 90's venture capitalist trying to force failed business models to work is going to fail as a method to hold the 90's bubble together (this also applies to other failed business models such as 'you need the RIAA to get quality music from artists to consumers'), and certainly is irrelevant to the established advertising industry.

      If the market doesn't work the way you want it to, it may be because people don't want to buy what you have. Attributing that to malice on the part of the demand side ignores the reality of the market, which is what Capitalists are supposed to live by, for better or for worse.

    12. Re:i can't believe it by HunkyBrewster · · Score: 1

      By that logic, every time I watch the Golden Girls and don't run out to buy the bladder control garment or sports utility vehicle that they are hawking during the breaks, I am stealing programming. Should I go to jail because I invariably switch channels as soon as a commercial comes on only to switch back like an ungrateful sea slug when they are over?

    13. Re:i can't believe it by philhy · · Score: 0

      Sounds like TiVo envy to me.

      --
      --
    14. Re:i can't believe it by mark_lybarger · · Score: 1

      why should the consumer pay with their time for an overblown outdated business model? haven't we been over this issue over and over again here on /.? 1 million $ per episode? it's not news to me, but it's fricking insaine. it's (Love. Football on TV.
      Shots of Gina Lee.
      Hanging with my friends.
      And ... twins.)
      but i've had my fill of people running across a meadow, through a wooded area, and back across a meadow to see a nike symbol and learn that they're moving people.

      it seems that the only people in this economy that aren't grossly overpaid are those that actually produce the food that keeps the rest of us getting larger and larger. and if it weren't for government subsidising our food production, the costs to the consumers there would be greatly higher (but more in check with reality).

      the bottom line is that just because that's their business model doesn't mean it has to be the consumers comsumption model. i say rip all the commercials (with the exception of coors) out. shake their model up a little, or a lot. it's the consumers that control the business demands and not the other way around.

    15. Re:i can't believe it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Actually, he has a Tivo, which is like having a mini-Neilsen box (Unless you opt-out of the data collection process).

      Nobody should opt-out, by the way. This is a rather egalitarian way to determine what shows are, and are not, being watched, and anyone can participate.

      They only collect broad demographic statistics anyway... It's not like it provides them with "John Smith: Viewed 43 minutes of "ER": Switched to "I was a closet homosexual" for 17 minutes": Went to bathroom to "jerk off"

    16. Re:i can't believe it by MadAhab · · Score: 2
      Right, the actors only got such ridiculous sums because they were bringing the eyeballs and advertisers were willing to pay for it. I don't know what you've been smoking, but that doesn't mean that if the advertisers are not willing to pay as much, that people will stop making shows that people like to watch. It just means they'll be paid a little less to do it.

      What, you think they'll give up the chance to be rich and famous because it pays 10% less? Yeah, I'm sure if Seinfeld knew he was only going to make $900K per episode he would have gone into dentistry.

      --
      Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
    17. Re:i can't believe it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tivo thinks you're gay!

    18. Re:i can't believe it by ginbot462 · · Score: 1

      I'm still bitter about MST, so I barely give Sci-Fi the time of day - much less watch their comercials. Of course, a Mstie tendency is to tape the shows (especially if they show them at 8 in the f*ckin' morning). Good thing Taken is a mini-series (if you want it to last that is), cause that is the only way the show is (somewhat) gauranteed to continue to a decent conclusion. That or make it "reality" based. "This episode brought to you by Lightspeed's New Aztec line of star crusiers. When you want to travel the galaxy in a butt-ass ugly ship! "

      --
      Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story :: Battlefield Earth : Organized Religion
    19. Re:i can't believe it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you want to travel the galaxy in a butt-ass ugly ship! "

      You know, I could see 'butt-ugly', and at a stretch I think I could manage 'ass-ugly', but my mind is really twisting trying to interpret 'butt-ass ugly'. As ugly as a butt-ass?

    20. Re:i can't believe it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yer fulla poopie. The people who sponsor the show don't know who or how many people are using tivo and must assume that everyone who is watching it is watching the commercials. Not watching the commercials (e.g. getting up to go pee) does not cost them any money, so why worry about tivo, DOOFUS!

    21. Re:i can't believe it by Frank+of+Earth · · Score: 2

      If he has a ratings box on his system, then it will record that Taken was viewed by this user and thus increasing it's market penetration. At the same time, it was also being recorded by Tivo.

      Sometime later, he then proceeded to watch Taken on his Tivo, fast forwarding commercials, which most are just ads for Sci-fi channel shows and everyone is happy.

    22. Re:i can't believe it by chad_r · · Score: 1

      So you'll watch it without commercials, the Sci-Fi Channel will lose money on the show, and in a few months you'll be running a story about how a group of fans are raising money to keep it on the air...incredible.

      Bleah. The commercials on Sci Fi seem to be about 3/4th advertising other shows on Sci Fi. Comedy Central and a few other cable shows are the same way.

      I never understood the point of that. Sure, it's nice to know about another show, but why repeat it once (or more) every 8 minutes? If you get enough from cable fees that you don't need ad money, why not just make the programs shorter so you can squeeze in more shows per day?

      What Sci Fi does that is an interesting marketing tactic is incorporate a sponsor into a cartoon segue between the commercial and show, usually with an announcement about it being a sponsor. And you've got to be fast with the skip button to avoid that one.

  10. please preface posts with spoiler warnings by haa...jesus+christ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    for those of us unable to grab the premiere, but interested in possibly watching going forward. thanks

    1. Re:please preface posts with spoiler warnings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How hard is it to simply NOT READ THE DISCUSSION? Nobody is FORCING you to read this.

    2. Re:please preface posts with spoiler warnings by stratjakt · · Score: 1

      Slashbots need to be told whether or not they're going to like something.

      Not reading the discussion would mean watching it and coming to his own conclusions.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    3. Re:please preface posts with spoiler warnings by haa...jesus+christ · · Score: 1

      well asshat, i'm merely suggesting that people who have generic reactions or impressions of the first episode, that share specifics that might ruin it for others, let us know ahead of time. make sense?

  11. To the guy in the car blasting music: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    What's your problem? I'm just sitting here, coding and drinking a cold refreshing Dr. Pepper, and your phat $1000 stereo setup encased by $500 of the world's rustiest metal rolls down the street. Would it kill you to turn that shit down? I wouldn't be impressed even if you were playing something good, but I've got news for you: ICP at high decibels will not transform a 115 pound white kid into a thug any more than that stupid ass basketball jersey and backwards baseball cap you call your gear. All it's doing is stripping bark from the trees, deafening anyone unfortunate enough to be in the city at the time, and, if we're lucky, making you sterile.

    While you're at it, take that Honda sticker off your car. I'd laugh at it if you didn't seriously think you're fooling people, but instead you make me weep for the future of humanity.

  12. 20 hours??? by Necron69 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No way in Hell do I have 20 hours to watch a "mini" series. Unless Sci-Fi reruns this in some all-day marathon session, while my wife and kids are out of town, this one will pass me by.

    WTF were they thinking?

    - Necron69

    1. Re:20 hours??? by Stele · · Score: 1

      Get a Tivo. Then you can watch the whole thing in 14 hours.

    2. Re:20 hours??? by dark_panda · · Score: 2

      I take it you're not a fan of that Keifer Sutherland show "24".

      J

    3. Re:20 hours??? by calags · · Score: 1

      Yes, they were thinking. Check out December 14 weekend:

      Saturday
      Sunday

      If you have a VCR to feed make sure you have enough tape.

      --
      Never attribute to stupidity what can be construed as a monopoly preservation tactic.
    4. Re:20 hours??? by Necron69 · · Score: 1

      I have a DISH Network PVR, but family politics prohibit blocking out prime time for two solid weeks. :)

      - Necron69

    5. Re:20 hours??? by sacherjj · · Score: 2

      I'm not blocking out prime time, I'm recording the Taken episodes when they air at 1 am. That what the big drives in the TiVo are for... :)

  13. Spaced out? by Gaggme · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The whole series is a total of 10 - 2 hour events. Now with all respects, how much more space would someone need.

    The series revolves around three families spaced out over 50 years of history. From strange lights over Nazi Germany, to modern day. As far as the first airing, it appears as though each family will receive 3 - 2 hours episodes, then a 2 hour finalie where everyone is brought together.

    Myself, I was rather appauled by the use of Steven Speilberg so prominently. Each of these episodes was directed by a different director, then Speilberg looked it over and tried to alter it ever so slightly IN THE POST PRODUCTION!. By tagging on a big league name, the further drew people in. That mixed with constant TV commercial marketing.

    --
    My ignorance is a perfect shield against your logic.
    1. Re:Spaced out? by chumpieboy · · Score: 1
      Imagine how much longer it would be if the SciFi announcer paused in between the words of the title.


      "You're Watching Stphnsplbrgprsntstkn".

    2. Re:Spaced out? by mblase · · Score: 3, Informative

      Myself, I was rather appauled by the use of Steven Speilberg so prominently. Each of these episodes was directed by a different director, then Speilberg looked it over and tried to alter it ever so slightly IN THE POST PRODUCTION!

      As I understand it, the miniseries was basically Spielberg's brainchild. Even if he wasn't responsible for the actual directing, it still came from his head. Credit is due.

    3. Re:Spaced out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's Steven Speilberg Presents not Steven Speilberg Directs. He is the executive producer and went to SciFi to pitch his idea so the title is accurate. SciFi is taking a big risk with this thing because of its unique scheduling. Why not give it a better chance by showing off a big name? It is his vision. Nobody says that Empire Strikes Back and Jedi were not George Lucas' even though he did not direct them. Name recognition goes a long way.

    4. Re:Spaced out? by joshsisk · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think he means we wishes that there was more space between episodes. As in, once a week for ten weeks as opposed to every day for ten days.

    5. Re:Spaced out? by derch · · Score: 1

      Speilberg probably met with the directors and laid out the look and feel that he wanted. He probably also hired directors he trusted to accurately do the style he wanted.

      It's commonly done with large projects. The Lord of the Rings is still Peter Jackson's even though several directors worked on auxilary units.

    6. Re:Spaced out? by cybermace5 · · Score: 2

      "appalled"

      --
      ...
    7. Re:Spaced out? by blamanj · · Score: 2

      If you looked at the commercials, it always said "Steven Speilberg presents." If you know how to read thst, you know it could mean as little as having him stand up at the beginning of the show and say "And now, here's Taken...".

      Yes, they are capitalizing on his name, but you need to bring your intelligence to bear as well.

    8. Re:Spaced out? by PianoComp81 · · Score: 2, Informative

      As I understand it, the miniseries was basically Spielberg's brainchild. Even if he wasn't responsible for the actual directing, it still came from his head. Credit is due.

      It was a combination of Leslie Bohem (the writer of each episode) and Spielberg. CNN has a good article on where it came from.

    9. Re:Spaced out? by Dfiant · · Score: 1

      "Myself, I was rather appauled by the use of Steven Speilberg so prominently. [...] By tagging on a big league name, the further drew people in."

      I for one am thankful for the prominent mention of Spielberg. Now I won't be surprised when I sit through another long presentation only to have it spoiled by an ending from way out in left field.

    10. Re:Spaced out? by tats · · Score: 1

      didn't Asimov "presented" other (yet) unknown sci-fi writers himself?

      what hv u to say to that.

    11. Re:Spaced out? by DaytonCIM · · Score: 3, Interesting

      then Speilberg looked it over and tried to alter it ever so slightly IN THE POST PRODUCTION!

      And thank god he did. When I first heard about this mini-series I was afraid that it would be another "Dinotopia" fiasco. I am so relieved that 1) Speilberg is obviously in control and 2) one of the 3 primary netowrks is not showing it.

      Something that most /.'ers may not be aware of is that for three months before Taken aired, SciFi mailed thousands of brochures and pamphlets to high schools. My wife is a teacher, so of course we ordered everything offered. They sent us lesson plans, videos, handouts, etc... An unbelievable amount of information for free... and none of it had one bit of commercialism attached (other than a couple of SciFi channel promotions). Pretty dame good stuff I must say.

      Lastly, one of the brochures stated that if your students did not have access to the SciFi channel, they would send copies of the mini-series to show in class (of course it is not the entire 20 hour series, but an abridged version) for free.

      Tom Hanks did the same thing (not quite as much material) with From The Earth to The Moon.

  14. that premiered last night on SciFi last night. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this must have come from the department of redundancy department. :P

    but seriously, i had never heard of this show until thanksgiving break. After that, i could not flip past scifi without catching a glimpse of an advertisement for the show, the making of the show, the behind the scenes show, etc, etc...

    i mean blah..it just looked like another invasion of the body snatchers rip off. needless to say i didnt watch it.

    ps- does anyone know when it premiered?

  15. STOP BEING SUCH SLAVES TO ENTERTAINMENT PEOPLE!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no wonder the entertainment insustry is so powerful, we're hopelessly addicted to their product.
    Deny yourself the (artificial) need for constant entertainment.

  16. waiting for it to show up on p2p by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I can't stand watching TV.

    I'm waiting for it to show up on the various p2p networks so I can truly enjoy it on my 14" CRT.

    I'll take low-res .avi over commercialized network broadcast any day.

    I'm the the RIAA/MPAA's worst nightmare.

    1. Re:waiting for it to show up on p2p by UVABlows · · Score: 1

      Does anyone know where to find a copy of it? I've been looking and haven't been able to.

      --

      <high-level position here>
      <name of stupid small company here>

    2. Re:waiting for it to show up on p2p by klevin · · Score: 2

      Well, assuming anyone even bothered to cap it, it could easily take a day or two to encode it to DiVX;-) or SVCD (VCD generally doesn't take very long). Then you have to add in the time to post/upload it. I'd give it a couple of days.

  17. At least it's not Braveheart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why was that movie on Sci-Fi?

    1. Re:At least it's not Braveheart by stratjakt · · Score: 1

      I was wondering that too.

      It was on the History Channel like a week earlier.

      So which is it, a docu-drama or made-up horseshit?

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    2. Re:At least it's not Braveheart by bkontr · · Score: 1

      That's what I was thinking too. I don't think the drama is based on facts; if Taken was fact based Spielberg has this irritating tendency to put a happy ending on everything and/or to interpret every detail for the viewers. I don't need any more sugar coated dramas, but a fact based story with some mystery might prove interesting.

      --


      "You helped our nation celebrate its bicentennial in 17 -- 1976." --George W. Bush, to Queen Elizabeth, Wash
    3. Re:At least it's not Braveheart by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 2

      Why was that movie on Sci-Fi?

      Because it was cheap? Hell, it was on the "Food Network" last week.

      I can't get enough of that one guy getting shot in the left cheek with an arrow...

  18. Anyone know how long it will be before the DVDs are available? Amazon.com has no info, other than a DVD will exist sometime.

  19. oh, it's on cable? forget it... by newsdee · · Score: 2

    I must be a freak since I use the internet more than I watch TV. Well, I actually don't watch TV at all. Public broadcasts are only re-runs and I don't want to pay for cable (I pay for broadband instead). So for me the only way to see a series is either if it is released in DVD format (that I can rent/buy and watch a piacere)) or, as some series in Asia, in stream format over the Internet.

    It wouldn't cost them much to put the content online, at a smaller quality, and charging a minium fee (like $1 per hour) for viewing. But we can't ask these kind of things as long as they are busy putting online services that have more DRM than music variety. :-(

    1. Re:oh, it's on cable? forget it... by Ted_Green · · Score: 1

      The amusing thing is, around here, it's cheaper for us to get broadband & cable than just cable alone. $2.50 is still $2.50

      Cox... so strange...

    2. Re:oh, it's on cable? forget it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      depending on who your ISP is, you may already have cable. have you tried hooking up a TV to your broadband cable?

    3. Re:oh, it's on cable? forget it... by j1mmy · · Score: 1

      I download some TV shows from p2p services. Most rips will have the commercials cut out, which is an added bonus.

    4. Re:oh, it's on cable? forget it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I won't pay for more advertising. As soon as they stop showing commercials on Cable television, I'll subscribe. I mean, I don't wear Nike shirts for the same reason. I'm not a fucking billboard. Actually, before I would get cable, they would also have to allow us to subscribe to INDIVIDUAL CHANNELS. I don't care for ESPN or any sports or women's channels or public access or government channels or the cartoon or children channels. Fuck those.

      I don't watch network television either. I just don't fucking care for ads.

    5. Re:oh, it's on cable? forget it... by GamezCore.com · · Score: 1

      I have cable and can't get the damn show. They decided to drop SciFi and put CMT (Country Music Television) in its place! Arrrrgh... I'm in hell.

      --

      www.GamezCore.com For Hardcore PS2 Gamerz : By Hardcore PS2 Gamerz
  20. is the time-space continuum repeating? by SethJohnson · · Score: 2


    Did Taco say he saw this last night or was it last night?
  21. I think.. by stratjakt · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...that the character dynamics and dialogue seemed cliche. I wouldn't expect a ton of originality from Spielberg, his claim to fame is the lowest common denominator, but this was so slow and predictable, it was a feat to even pay attention.

    The casting was adequate, but not spectacular. The special effects were on par with any other TV miniseries. I perhaps just expected more from Spielberg, perhaps he could have thrown some more cash into some eye candy to keep me interested.

    The plot itself was reminiscent of an archetypal heaven-hell scenario. Nothing new, but a tried and true storyline if told correctly.

    All in all I'd give this maybe 4 stars out of 10, but I'll reserve final judgement until after the miniseries is complete.

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    1. Re:I think.. by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I wouldn't expect a ton of originality from Spielberg, his claim to fame is the lowest common denominator

      Actually, I'm pretty sure his "claim to fame" is making Schindler's List, which is widely and rightfully regarded as one of the best motion pictures of the 20th century.

      --

      I write in my journal
    2. Re:I think.. by stratjakt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >> Actually, I'm pretty sure his "claim to fame" is making Schindler's List, which is widely and rightfully regarded as one of the best motion pictures of the 20th century.

      No, I'm pretty sure it's ET, Gremlins, Jurrasic Park and Raiders of the Lost Ark.

      Frankly, anyone could have made Schindlers List. Making Nazi's look bad is like shooting fish in a barrel.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    3. Re:I think.. by tswinzig · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wouldn't expect a ton of originality from Spielberg, his claim to fame is the lowest common denominator

      If you mean "regular people," you're right, he makes movies lots of regular people like to watch. However, he has done his share of weighty matter...

      Schindler's List
      Saving Private Ryan
      Amistad
      The Color Purple
      Band of Brothers
      AI (even though I didn't like it)
      Empire of the Sun
      E.T. (both weighty AND appeals to the masses)
      Close Encounters of the Third Kind

      "Lowest common denominator," indeed.

      --

      "And like that ... he's gone."
    4. Re:I think.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're going to spend 20 hours watching something that you rate 4/10, you watch too much TV.

    5. Re:I think.. by johnliscombhotmail.c · · Score: 1

      I think Speilberg has a bit more going for him than that. Have you ever seen his film, The Duel? It was the one that put him on the map and got Hollywood to take notice. Its one of his best IMHO. Can you name a better modern film maker? Who knows how to keep an audience on the edge of their seat better? Sorry Hitch is dead. Part of Speilberg's draw is that his films work on multiple levels simultaneously. Whether you are talking about Close Encounters or Raiders of the Lost Ark, there is a lot more going on beneath of the surface. Despite his Hollywood Leftist leanings his films are surprisingly Judeo-Christian (a good number of them anyway) where the importance of family is stressed as well as the Trinity. Whether this is intentional or born of the subconscious with him is not known. But it is unmistakeably there! The Trinity?? Oh yes and yet he is a Jew. These and others are recurring themes throughout his body of work. I know that Speilberg knows how to make a good popcorn loving movie for the masses but he has the rare gift to truly transcend the mundane and also at the same time make an excellent FILM. The only criticism i have ever read of Schindler's List is that it made the Nazi's TOO GENTLE! Did they actually gas anybody during the movie???

    6. Re:I think.. by realmolo · · Score: 1

      Well, it is a piece of shit. But blaming Spielberg for it is maybe a little of base. He's the PRODUCER. Which means that while he is ultimately responsible for the show, mostly he just pays for it. If he was DIRECTING it, it would all be his fault.

    7. Re:I think.. by stratjakt · · Score: 1

      I didnt really watch it. Please. WWE Raw was on. Did you see Christian do that con-chair-to on D-Vons head? He totally reeks of awesomeness!

      I just wanted to see if I can still spout the same type of academic-sounding jibberish that got me A's in english lit even though I never read any of that shit.

      "Canterbury tales is a delightfully whimsical piece of prose, with deep sociological underpinnings".. etc

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    8. Re:I think.. by bkontr · · Score: 1

      "Actually, I'm pretty sure his "claim to fame" is making Schindler's List, which is widely and rightfully regarded as one of the best motion pictures of the 20th century."

      Even then Spielberg felt the need for a "happy ending"; what the fuck was so happy about 6 million jews being put to death? Don't get me wrong Schindler's List is a great movie, but like nearly every single movie about the period many of the characters are stiff cartoonish cliche's of Nazis and Jews. Oh well, I guess we can't expect too much from Hollywood these days.

      --


      "You helped our nation celebrate its bicentennial in 17 -- 1976." --George W. Bush, to Queen Elizabeth, Wash
    9. Re:I think.. by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 2

      Frankly, anyone could have made Schindlers List.

      Never seen it, huh?

      --

      I write in my journal
    10. Re:I think.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Schindler's List - excellent
      Saving Private Ryan - crap
      Amistad - crap
      The Color Purple - uber crap
      Band of Brothers - crap
      AI (even though I didn't like it) - crap
      Empire of the Sun - uber uber crap
      E.T. (both weighty AND appeals to the masses) - uber uber crap
      Close Encounters of the Third Kind - crap

      You forgot Jaws, another excellent movie. Two good movies and a huge steaming pile of shit. Spielberg's shot his wad.

    11. Re:I think.. by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 2

      Even then Spielberg felt the need for a "happy ending"; what the fuck was so happy about 6 million jews being put to death?

      The part where 1,200 were saved.

      Oskar Schindler was a hero. An accidental hero, yeah, but through his misguided actions and deeply flawed motives, he still managed to save the lives of 1,200 people, and by extension over 6,000 of their descendants. Are you aware that there are more Schindler Jews-- including survivors and their families-- alive in the world today than there are Jews in all of Poland? Schindler made a difference. His story, the story of his accomplishment, is inspirational. That, in my opinion, makes for a pretty fucking happy ending, you asshole.

      many of the characters are stiff cartoonish cliche's of Nazis and Jews

      Seeing as how the portrayals of the various major characters were all based on the accounts of eyewitnesses, I think you're a little out of line in this criticism.

      Oh well, I guess we can't expect too much from Hollywood these days.

      How many movies have you made? When you make your masterpiece, we'll all listen to your blanket criticisms of Hollywood. Until then, please shut the fuck up, okay? Thanks.

      --

      I write in my journal
    12. Re:I think.. by garethx1 · · Score: 1

      Well I don't really know about Schindlers, But a Blanket criticism of Hollywood is quite accurate.
      I have heard many Directors, Actors, Writers say that once you get your money to make your masterpiece that you have to deal with some coked up dude with a gold chain who, once you get into production, is telling you they have good numbers that tell them you should put a "Robo_space_Dog" in your hard Scifi picture. Or it needs some "eye-candy" so you have to hire a talentless actor because he looks good. Etc.

    13. Re:I think.. by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 2

      And yet, somehow, dozens of worthy films get made in Hollywood every year.

      I stand by my remark. People who have never made a movie are in no position at all to criticize Hollywood, or anybody who works in it. You can argue about the individual merits of any given film all you want-- after all, opinions are like assholes-- but in the face of so much evidence to the contrary, broad indictments of "the system" come across sounding utterly absurd.

      --

      I write in my journal
    14. Re:I think.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Schindler's List
      NEVER SEEN IT

      Saving Private Ryan
      STUPID PLOT (uh.. they had radios in WW2 - no need to go walking around europe)

      Amistad
      NEVER SEEN IT

      The Color Purple
      NEVER SEEN IT

      Band of Brothers
      NEVER SEEN IT

      AI (even though I didn't like it)
      NEVER SEEN IT

      Empire of the Sun
      NEVER SEEN IT

      E.T. (both weighty AND appeals to the masses)
      SAW IT. HATED IT

      Close Encounters of the Third Kind
      LIKED IT. SORT OF.

    15. Re:I think.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Twirlip is a professional troll. Please moderate him as such.

    16. Re:I think.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Twirlip is nothing but a professional troll. Please moderate him accordingly.

    17. Re:I think.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Twirlip is a troll. Please moderate him accordingly.

    18. Re:I think.. by ErikZ · · Score: 2


      Woah woah WOAH!

      Nazis are bad? I haven't seen Schindler's List yet.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    19. Re:I think.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He shoots a wad that millions of people line up to swallow. You're still a virgin and spill your seed as whiney anonymous slashdot trolls. Advantage: Spielberg!

    20. Re:I think.. by leery · · Score: 1

      D-, the Canterbury tales are in verse, not prose

      --
      "This is not a sig." -- R.
    21. Re:I think.. by bkontr · · Score: 1

      Oskar Schindler was a hero. An accidental hero, yeah, but through his misguided actions and deeply flawed motives, he still managed to save the lives of 1,200 people, and by extension over 6,000 of their descendants. Are you aware that there are more Schindler Jews-- including survivors and their families-- alive in the world today than there are Jews in all of Poland? Schindler made a difference. His story, the story of his accomplishment, is inspirational. That, in my opinion, makes for a pretty fucking happy ending, you asshole.

      So, what you're saying is if Nazis lined your family up to be shot to death and you were the only one that survived that you would be happy?!? God, you must be one heartless SOB. The fact that you survived might be cause for rejoice, but it certainly would not be that great I think. Many holocaust survivers had to live with constant nightmares and some become suicidal....can you imagine trying to return to a normal life? Did Spielberg give us a glimpse of that, hell no. The war ended and everything returned to normal afterwards??! Fuck no....many jews had no family left, felt unwanted in their own country and europe and had no possesions to speak of. Just because you survived the concentration camps didn't mean you could have any type of "normal" life. The fact Schindler saved jews is great, but don't you think it's appalling that the millions of Germans didn't really give a fuck that their jewish neighbors were being hauled off from their homes like cattle while their possesions were being confiscated! But no, according to you we should be happy with that..right? Spielberg could have given us a glimpse of the hell of jews after the war, instead he made it seem as though everyone just went back to what they were doing before the war. He could of showed us more of how Germans feared the Nazis or loathed jews....why? So, next time you open your pie hole Herr Hollywood please get a fucking clue what happiness is.

      --


      "You helped our nation celebrate its bicentennial in 17 -- 1976." --George W. Bush, to Queen Elizabeth, Wash
    22. Re:I think.. by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 2

      So, what you're saying is if Nazis lined your family up to be shot to death and you were the only one that survived that you would be happy?!?

      In 1992 or 1993, a friend of mine was out on a lake with his two sons. I never found out exactly what happened, but there was an accident, and both sons were badly hurt. One died. The other survived.

      About a year later, I was talking to him about it, and he told me that he'd never known such a conflicting set of emotions. On the one hand, he was in anguish at the loss of his son. But at the same time, he felt such joy and gratitude that the other son, who might also have died, lived. He told me that the hardest thing he had to deal with in the following months was the sense of guilt he carried because he was more happy that his son survived than sad because his other son had died.

      I've heard that this is not an uncommon feeling, particularly among the survivors of accidents. The survivors feel such joy to have survived at all, then become overwhelmed with guilt because of it. In other words, they feel bad because they don't feel worse.

      The fact Schindler saved jews is great, but don't you think it's appalling that the millions of Germans didn't really give a fuck that their jewish neighbors were being hauled off from their homes like cattle while their possesions were being confiscated!

      Sure, it's appalling. What's worse is that it's also entirely understandable. When you make your movie about that aspect of the holocaust, I will pay my $8.50 to see it.

      So, next time you open your pie hole Herr Hollywood please get a fucking clue what happiness is.

      Man. You're a dick. Please keep me on your foes list, and make sure to assign a modifier. I'd just as soon you not respond to any more of my posts in the future.

      --

      I write in my journal
    23. Re:I think.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The others, I'll buy. But A.I.? Please. It COULD have been a very smart, thought-provoking movie that required some effort to get through, and would have been very rewarding in the end.. but INSTEAD, it was a huge contrived piece of crap, that the characters felt they had to continue explaining to the audience. I HATE it when movie/TV characters patronize me. Yes I KNOW where the plot is going.. stop TELLING me where it's going and GET THERE.

    24. Re:I think.. by Slurm-V · · Score: 0

      Gremlins was directed by Joe Dante (and written by Chris Columbus - go figure). Speilberg was just one of the Exec Producers.

      --
      Of course it's going off the rails. How else is it ever going to fly?
    25. Re:I think.. by Frank+of+Earth · · Score: 2

      How dare you forget Goonies you insensitive clod!

      Oops, this isn't a poll, so please remove the insensitive clod from the statement above.

      Chester Copperpot!

    26. Re:I think.. by garethx1 · · Score: 1

      Before we get more Off Topic, I just want to reassert, Blanket criticisms come from the people who make movies all the time. I think the reason we dont hear more is the fear of reprisals. You hurt your chance of making another movie if you start shouting about how your movie didnt do well because some producer who went to business, not film, school, decided to fuck with your movie.
      And thats probably good common sense. Its like artistic whistle blowing. Because i also cook, I'll give you an analogy. You come up with a menu Item and of course the Chef tries it and gives you feedback, you change it, Chef says okay, it goes on the menu. Now lets imagine that you make a dish, And the FOH manager, Wait-Staff manager Accountant, day manager, and marketing director gave you input. And you had to incorparate all of it or it didnt go on the menu. This is what typically happens in hollywood and shouldnt. To give a blanket criticism of hollywood from a non-industry type is not only valid but rooted in truth. Look at all the cookie cutter movies getting made that dissapear in a week. This is where hollywood is blowing all their money. Think about it.

  22. The aliens are too mystical/magical for me by hirschma · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Lessee... they can take any shape. They can convert to energy and just vanish. They are telpathic. They can learn English really, really fast. I mean, what's next? Flying bicycles?

    Sure, I guess that these things could be part of the same super technology that allows them to get here in the first place, but I'd think its a lot easier to move faster than light than to establish communications with a totally alien species, much less assume their biology and all that jazz.

    Bottom line - too much fantasy is being injected into this science fiction.

    1. Re:The aliens are too mystical/magical for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget they can telekinetically give humans nosebleeds too.

      Come to think of it, maybe that's more of a limitation. They just can't stop giving people nosebleeds.

    2. Re:The aliens are too mystical/magical for me by rootmonkey · · Score: 1

      They can pickup chicks too.

      --

      Yes but every time I try to see it your way, I get a headache.
    3. Re:The aliens are too mystical/magical for me by target · · Score: 1

      So let's see. You're opposed to the fantastic elements at the expense of good science fiction, then you pick the one thing that our science understands to be impossible and claim that it's believable to you?

      To go through them: take any shape. Weird, but I can't think of a physics principle that would prevent this. Liquids do exactly that in real life, though you need a container to do it.

      Convert to energy: E=mC^2. If the energy is of a non-visible wavelength, poof, it's vanished.

      Telepathy: ok, I don't know of any good science to back this up. I'm sure we can all aome up with plausible arguments, but I'll let you have this one.

      Learning English: Oh, for god's sake. This could easily be a technology solution.

      "Easier to move faster than light...."

      So it's easier to violate laws of physics than do nifty tricks that obey them? Methinks you should rethink "science fiction."

      Besides, a guy who's definitely not a fantasy author once said that any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic.

      - target

    4. Re:The aliens are too mystical/magical for me by jkusters · · Score: 1
      Bottom line - too much fantasy is being injected into this science fiction.

      This is on the Sci-Fi channel. The fact that it is more fantasy than science surprises you in exactly what way?

      JOhn.

    5. Re:The aliens are too mystical/magical for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yea, of course they can do all of those things, their super smart aliens. The fact that they crash
      landed TWICE bothers me!

  23. Spielberg's Taken by lunenburg · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oh great, I guess that means I have to find another date to the prom.

    1. Re:Spielberg's Taken by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 2

      Put away your duct tape.

  24. It was OK but, what about.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    THIS????

    1. Re:It was OK but, what about.... by Psy-Kosh · · Score: 1

      *laughs*

      You forgot the ad slogan though... "So good, you'll eat a whole beowulf cluster of them."

      --
      "Post is prior times likelihood" -The Bayesian Songbook
  25. Reviewed by Flabby+Boohoo · · Score: 1

    Yesterday's Chicago Tribune (Tempo section) had a review and the guy really railed against it.

    Enough bad points that I decided to take a pass.

  26. Dumbass... by tha_mink · · Score: 0

    It's retarted to use an entertainment outlet to proclaim your distaste for entertainment.

    --
    You'll have that sometimes...
  27. Ok, ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can you suggest some alternatives?

  28. That's not the point, moron. by joshamania · · Score: 2, Insightful

    By saying that he set up his Tivo to watch the rest of it is saying that he enjoyed the show enough to record it all, not that he was going to skip the commercials. Gawd, you sound like an AOL exec, expecting him to "steal" the programming.

    By Tivo'ing the show, our dear author will be assured of not missing ANY episodes, because, like me, he probably has no time to slot for several hours worth of programming when Sci-fi chooses to air it.

    And, like as not, our dear author is going to watch some of those commercials, because, since Tivo has no 30 second skip function, he will have to see some of them, even in fast forward, and will stop to watch commercials he is interested in. I do it all the time.

    Now tack on the fact that the Tivo can track which commercials he is watching and narrowing down the demographic that our dear advertisers need to target, saving them money for not showing commercials to people that don't care about their products, and allowing Sci-Fi to charge more for their time because they can show exactly who is watching what. (assuming they all don't have their heads up their arses, the different companies ought to be doing this...)

    So, no, Sci-Fi does not NEED to lose money on Tivo customers, and you are an unenlighted media conglomerate tool.

    1. Re:That's not the point, moron. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tivo DOES have a 30 second skip function. Try hitting Select-Play-Select-3-0-Select to toggle it on (and off).

    2. Re:That's not the point, moron. by joshamania · · Score: 2

      Hmmm...that's cool! I've got UltimateTV, so I've just got a button. But that's good to know when the big bad M$ drops their service and I have to go Tivo...

    3. Re:That's not the point, moron. by sacherjj · · Score: 2

      And, like as not, our dear author is going to watch some of those commercials, because, since Tivo has no 30 second skip function, he will have to see some of them, even in fast forward, and will stop to watch commercials he is interested in. I do it all the time.

      Actually you can turn on 30 second skip. You don't even need backdoors on.

      If my memory is correct you press Select Play Select 3 0 Select during playback.

  29. Link? by nutshell42 · · Score: 1
    Yeah I know, everyone has flash and the official sites for tv-shows are always the absolutely best way to enhance your personal information-gathering experience.

    But... couldn't you have linked to some review of the show, a fanpage or something like that, so everyone who didn't watch it could inform him-/herself without using google?

    --
    Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
  30. Spielberg's taken? by matticus · · Score: 2

    Well, I guess it was just a pipedream.
    Next on the list-George Lucas!

  31. boring x-files by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    felt like a slow moving x-files espisode. Nothing new except extreme slowness.

  32. How about Admiral Poindexter?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Subject: Total Information Awareness Demonstration for Poindexter

    See the SFWeekly Article for more information...

    The SF Weekly's column by Matt Smith in the Dec 3 issue points out that there may be some information that John M. and Linda Poindexter of 10 Barrington Fare, Rockville, MD, 20850, may be missing in their pursuit of total information awareness. He suggests that people with information to offer should phone +1 301 424 6613 to speak with that corrupt official and his wife. Neighbors Thomas E. Maxwell, 67, at 8 Barringon Fare (+1 301 251 1326), James F. Galvin, 56, at 12 (+1 301 424 0089), and Sherrill V. Stant (nee Knight) at 6, may also lack some information that would be valuable to them in making decisions -- decisions that could affect the basic civil rights of every American.

  33. Since "abductions" are really ... by burgburgburg · · Score: 4, Insightful
    hypnagogic sleep paralysis (HSP), a fairly well documented phenomenon, I just can't get into this series.

    And I have yet to hear a remotely reasonable explanation as to why an alien species would expend the enormous amounts of energy it would take to get to the one of the obscure spokes of the galaxy (way away from the interesting concentrated center) and spend even two seconds watching us. Denibian slime worms would more interesting.

    1. Re:Since "abductions" are really ... by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 2
      And I have yet to hear a remotely reasonable explanation as to why an alien species would expend the enormous amounts of energy it would take to get to the one of the obscure spokes of the galaxy (way away from the interesting concentrated center) and spend even two seconds watching us. Denibian slime worms would more interesting.

      And I have yet to hear a remotely reasonable explanation as to why Charles Darwin would expend the enormous amounts of capital it would take to get to remote islands. Or Marco Polo, or Columbus, for that matter.

      That you can't think of a good reason doesn't mean that there's no good reason.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    2. Re:Since "abductions" are really ... by TheAncientHacker · · Score: 2

      No. There's a theory that abductions are hypnagogic sleep paralysis but to say it as an undeniable fact it just bad science tied to arrogance.

    3. Re:Since "abductions" are really ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually if you read the website you linked to, Night Terrors as they are called, have been linked to "Vampires" not "Aliens". And the sensation is of some creature sitting on your chest, trying to strangulate you, or suffocate you by compressing your chest. This does not explain spaceships and such, and most of the events in the movie happen while people are awake, not while they are sleeping, as in HSP.

    4. Re:Since "abductions" are really ... by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Why would the Royal Navy send the HMS Beagle to little islands 800 miles off the coast of South America? Why would Darwin study some birds?

      This "obscure" spoke of the Galaxy isn't that isolated when you look at how close the stars are.

    5. Re:Since "abductions" are really ... by mblase · · Score: 2

      Denibian slime worms would more interesting.

      Considering how much time our university employees spend researching every last minutae of terrestrial life, archaeology, biology, chemistry, etc. etc., I can accept this as plausible.

      Why should we assume the entire alien species is interested in us? These are probably just some interplanetary grad students out to get their Ph.D. completed as quickly as possible so they can get on with their careers.

    6. Re:Since "abductions" are really ... by mblase · · Score: 2

      There's a theory that abductions are hypnagogic sleep paralysis but to say it as an undeniable fact it just bad science tied to arrogance.

      All right: by combining Occam's Razor with the fact that evidence of alien abductions are anecdotal at best, while HSP is well-researched and documented, we can say with a reasonable degree of certainty that most or all reports of alien abductions, aren't.

      Satisfied?

    7. Re:Since "abductions" are really ... by TheAncientHacker · · Score: 2

      Close.

      How about: by using Occam's Razor with the fact HSP is well-researched and documented, we can say with a reasonable degree of certainty that some reports of alien abductions are actually HSP.

      Unless, of course, you've got a provable test methodology that is repeatable and something measurable to document the "anectdotal at best" statement.

    8. Re:Since "abductions" are really ... by ajs · · Score: 2

      "alien abductions are anecdotal at best, while HSP is well-researched and documented"

      Ok, and the connection is?

      Sure, I've heard some accounts that match the scenario of HSP, and that might well be the explanation, but you need to draw a more credible link here. You have no outlined all of the possibilities, you've simply presented one alternative, and jumped to the conclusion that because it is a real phenomenon, it must be the correct interpretation.

      Occam's Razor is a useful tool, and a guide when making decisions among seemingly equal choices, but when you artificially restrict the number of choices, you defeat any course of logic.

    9. Re:Since "abductions" are really ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You did know that this show was a science-fiction show, right? It's fiction, as in not real and shouldn't be taken seriously to the point of fact or even as possible.

    10. Re:Since "abductions" are really ... by QuackQuack · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I just don't understand this line of reasoning...

      Why do anthropologists travel far to study primitive tribes?

      Obviously, it's a widely shared dream among humans to one day explore the universe, if it weren't then there wouldn't be so much science fiction. So assuming that one day we discover a way travel the vast distances of space, would we not want to look for alien lifeforms, especially intelligent ones?
      Assuming we discover such life forms, would we not want to study them?
      And in studying them, wouldn't it be unwise to make our presence widely known because of the drastic effects it could have on their civilization?
      So therefore wouldn't we probably resort to means of study such as abducting specimens from their sleep, and if possible, blocking the experience from their memories?

      So if aliens are visiting us and doing these things (which we can't really prove either way), we shouldn't find it so absurd

      --
      By reading this sig, you agree to the terms of my sig license.
  34. hehe by !Da_BLaRGiNaToR! · · Score: 1

    I dug it, going to watch the 1st and 2nd episode tonight again!

    --
    I am BLaRG!
  35. Wish They'd take me... by Phoenix666 · · Score: 1

    Economy sucks, projects are sparse, country's turning into Orwellian police state, and they're about to cancel Farscape and Firefly. There's nothing I'd love better than to be Taken.

    So hear that, oh might travellers from the planet Calgon? Take me away! (right after I see the Two Towers on the 18th please...)

    --
    Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
    1. Re:Wish They'd take me... by doooras · · Score: 2

      The cancellation of Farscape is the direct result of SciFi wasting so much money on Taken.

      Bonnie Hammer in action...

    2. Re:Wish They'd take me... by stratjakt · · Score: 1

      Farscape sucking, noone watching, and losing assloads of money may have played a part too.

      At least you still have your fan fiction.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    3. Re:Wish They'd take me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm glad someone else misses Farscape. What was the Sci-Fi channel thinking allowing Farscape to go off the air??

    4. Re:Wish They'd take me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but whiny bitches such as yourself are still complaining on slashdot. You'll always have that won't you? If you think the US is a "Orwellian police state" then you are an idiot. Simple as that.

    5. Re:Wish They'd take me... by Phoenix666 · · Score: 1

      Have you ever actually lived in an Orwellian police state? I have. Li'l ol' place called the People's Republic of China. "Public Security Bureau" watches every communication.

      Check the news here. John Poindexter is set to create "total awareness" with the express purpose of tracking every single communication & datum from every citizen. Just how far do you think that is from what the PSB does in China? Ergo, the United States is turning into an Orwellian police state.

      Wake up from your conservative republican trance and smell the coffee.

      --
      Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
  36. Meh... by shivianzealot · · Score: 1

    I'm going to take a dissenting view and say the first episode seemed like a rehash of all the done to death on the discovery channel paranormal concepts. Three hours missing time, bloody noses, car won't start up, aliens can read minds, obnoxious overwieght child actors etc. Nothing original.

    I'm sure I'm going to get flamed for this...

    --

    Bored with karma, be a fan/freak

  37. If I could reach into the computer to beat you... by Wakko+Warner · · Score: 2

    ...you'd be hurting right now.

    - A.P.

    --
    "Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
  38. First take confusion. by Night0wl · · Score: 2, Funny

    You know, I should really go to sleep. I saw the title and thought, "Speilberg's getting married?" ...

    And earlier this morning, watching the rerun of Tech TV's Screen Savers I was cought off guard by there "Bitch chat" with George Clooney.
    It was moments later I realized the height difference in Bit and Chat...

    --
    Computational Madness in a round package.
  39. Well obviously, though they may take our lives ... by burgburgburg · · Score: 4, Funny
    They can never take
    our freedom!

    If that isn't a sci-fi premise, I don't know what is.

  40. Probing by Ann+Coulter · · Score: 2, Funny

    Alien abduction stories are so bland that the only way that they can possibly excite me is if they actually showed an uncensored anal probing. I seriously think that alien abductions are at around the same stylistic level as any mediocre porn film and therefore they should be made into real porn so that they can actualize the full potential of these contrived mythos. It's sad how much the quality of a culture's mythology says about the culture.

    1. Re:Probing by glam0006 · · Score: 0

      I'll show you an anal probing...

    2. Re:Probing by jmcwork · · Score: 1

      I'm sure if you would ask Eric Cartman he would tell you there is nothing bland about it. (Deploy the antenna!)

    3. Re:Probing by Oliver+Wendell+Jones · · Score: 2

      I watched the behind the scenes for Taken that SciFi ran and it looks like there is going to be some zero-g love making going on, with some possibly very blurry nudity... sounds like maybe your prediction will come true.

      --
      A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
  41. What do I think? by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · · Score: 1, Troll

    Well Taco, I think you have way too much time on your hands. Tivo or not, how do you watch so much tv? And aren't you married now? Go probe your bride and turn off the tube.

  42. Some of us work in the morning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The damn thing didn't start till 10!

  43. That reminds me.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A lot of people don't like the John Edwards show being on Sci-Fi, but I don't think they understand that it is as fictional (or more so) than many other shows on the channel.

    1. Re:That reminds me.. by stratjakt · · Score: 1


      You mean John Edwards, the biggest douche in the universe?

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    2. Re:That reminds me.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, The Biggest Douche in the Universe. (Link created so Google will pick it up)

    3. Re:That reminds me.. by MCraigW · · Score: 1

      John Edwards isn't Science Fiction, it's fantasy.

    4. Re:That reminds me.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never said he was Science-Fiction, I said he was fiction (which fantasy is). I have no problems with Sci-Fi showing fantasy/horror. Otherwise, a movie like Highlander wouldn't fit on the channel, and I like Highlander.

  44. Boring! by coinreturn · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Too many characters doing almost nothing. Notice that most characters weren't even named! They were just "that redhead" showing up and doing boring everyday stuff. No distinct characters (were there any blacks, asians, etc in the forties? - btw I am a white male), so you could barely tell people apart. Okay, so the aliens are kind of cool. They only showed about seven seconds of aliens in the first hour of boring crap, so I turned it off. I was VASTLY disappointed. So you want to make a miniseries - if you don't have DRAMA no is going to watch 20 hours!

    1. Re:Boring! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope there was any blacks and asians in the 40's.

      Negroes didnt exist till much later
      and those bastard japs were still in concentrations camps from WW2.

      Feel more like the 40's now?

    2. Re:Boring! by greysky · · Score: 1

      There weren't any blacks/asians/etc in military inteligence in the 40s, so the 75% of the characters that are MI would be out of place if they weren't white. Keep in mind that at the time restaurants, schools and even military units were segregated, and to have them integrated in a show set at that time would be historically inacurate.

  45. re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that premiered last night on SciFi last night.

    Thats redundant :P

    had to point that out :)

  46. 10 reasons not to watch it by ehiris · · Score: 2

    10 - Commercials
    9 - I'm never going to finish reading Cryptonomicon
    8 - I'll miss night 9 due to being on a bus
    7 - I'll miss night 10 due to being on the mountain drying out my clothes from a day of snowboarding
    6 - It might be good
    5 - I might like it
    4 - I wouldn't be able to deal with the loss
    3 - I don't own a Tivo
    2 - If I buy a Tivo I won't have enough room in my entertainment center
    1 - Tivo is just a slow overpriced computer.

    Does this series only seem to me or is it a way of getting more geeks (people that believe in Alien stuff) to buy Tivos this Christmas?

    1. Re:10 reasons not to watch it by Oliver+Wendell+Jones · · Score: 2

      3 - I don't own a Tivo
      2 - If I buy a Tivo I won't have enough room in my entertainment center
      1 - Tivo is just a slow overpriced computer.

      Uh, if you can, find the manual to your VCR, it will show you how to make the flashing "12:00" go away, and explain how you can program it to (now follow closely here...) record TV shows when you're not even there!

      --
      A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
    2. Re:10 reasons not to watch it by ehiris · · Score: 2

      hmmm ... Note to self ... Buy blank video tapes. I never thought that VCR could have use anymore then to switch between different video/audio devices. :)

  47. Hello, Lexx? Conan O'Brien called. by Unknown+Bovine+Group · · Score: 1

    I couldn't bring myself to watch Lexx: first the blatant "this chick will get the horny geek eyeballs" is so played out. Ok, maybe it's not, but she didn't do it for me.

    But most of was that stupid robot head with the live-actor mouth!!

    Hello, Lexx? Conan O'Brien called. He wants his bit back.

    --
    m00.
    1. Re:Hello, Lexx? Conan O'Brien called. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ummm i hope you are joking...if you dont know where the show lexx came from, i pity you.

    2. Re:Hello, Lexx? Conan O'Brien called. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pity away.

  48. Spielberg trademark by Shamashmuddamiq · · Score: 3, Funny

    After seeing the commercials, I just couldn't bring myself to watch it. Is it just me, or is it true that "the little kid who knows everything" cliche is SO FREAKING OVERUSED by Spielberg (and other) films that it's almost embarrasing to watch??

    Once a week, when I see a commercial for a new movie or show where "the little kid knows everything," I can't change the channel fast enough. And I don't tire of these kinds of things easily.

    --
    ...just my 2 gil.
    1. Re:Spielberg trademark by VPN3000 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Spielberg sucks for that. Mind you, the audience he is writing for is, typically, about the age range of the 'kid who knows all'.

      Just as war movies with lots of violence usually have a male actor, 20-35 years old, who's character has gun handling abilities and wit that would stop a train. It's all about target audience.

      So unless you are a small child that knows all, I doubt you would dig the 'kid who knows all' genre of characters.

      It was obvious in Taken, they wrote this for a diverse audience. It's simple enough for a child to understand, enough drama and emotion for the soccer moms, lots of military stuff for the guys, good special effects for the geeks, etc.

      At least it wasn't AI. Without the expensive special effects, I think this would have best been a straight-to-dvd/ppv release. It probably would have best been a NC17 release considering the mother/robot son relationship going on there. Quite perverse.

    2. Re:Spielberg trademark by Erik+K.+Veland · · Score: 1
      "the little kid who knows everything" cliche is SO FREAKING OVERUSED
      I'd like to mod this part of you sentence (-1: Redundant)
      --
      "I tend to think of OS X as Linux with QA and Taste", James Gosling, creator of Java
    3. Re:Spielberg trademark by geek · · Score: 2

      But kids DO know everything. Just ask mine.

    4. Re:Spielberg trademark by falzer · · Score: 1

      Like how about the little know it all in "Signs"?

      Ha! Looks like you DIDN'T know it all, you little twerp! Water damaged the aliens, but you wanted to stay home instead of staying near a body of water, only believing your book of alien fairy tales, and it almost got your sorry ass killed! How do you like them apples?!

    5. Re:Spielberg trademark by gad_zuki! · · Score: 2

      I'm guessing the little kid, or kids, are going to be alien/human hybrids. Lets hope this series has more originality than this.

  49. re-airs Dec 14th. by Nyktos · · Score: 1
    Schedule says it's gonna air again starting on the 14th and 15th of December in a big ass marathony type event.


    This was filmed in Vancouver BC (Along with many other of your favourite (<- see, Canadian spelling even) shows and movies! GO CANUCKS GO!


    Sucky thing is that I don't think I can watch this show on TV up here as our cable package doesn't get us SciFi. Damnit... I guess I have to wait till it shows up on the p2p nets

  50. My take on Taken by Carnivore24 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I watched both the 9-11 and 11-1am showing and I thought it was pretty interesting. I have always been intrigued and felt a sense of strangeness while watching it. Especially scenes like the plane going down and the lights engulfing it.

    One scene that stood out was when the woman was walking through the ship wreckage and discovers the alien metal. I was waiting for something to either jump out and attack her or she was going to discover a body. Instead we see her walk off and the camera zooms in on the tree revealing an alien. That was eerie.

    The rest of the episode was brief flashbacks and intricate character developement. I also noticed they tried to keep with the Area 51 crash and weather balloon coverup, these were blended into the story quite well. Dont forget the bits with the alien drivebys and cars/electrical equipment shutting off.

    I will be tuning in the check out more....

  51. Last Night by travdaddy · · Score: 0, Redundant

    CmdrTaco,

    I missed Taken last night which premiered last night on SciFi last night, so I have no opinion whether I liked Taken last night which premiered last night on SciFi last night. Last night I was doing something else last night. I'll try to catch it tonight.

    --
    Adidas To Bring Back Sneakernet
  52. Re:Make Spielberg Open Source! by number6x · · Score: 1


    when you talk to the <grin> good folks </grin> at the MPAA, make sure to point out that by accepting the lates Microsoft(r) EULA's they are granting permission to Microsoft(r) to examine the data on the MPAA's computers. That includes copyrighted movies and music.

    If the MPAA is using WinXP(r), WinXP(r) Pro(r), or the latest service pack for Win2000(r) Pro(r); Microsoft(r) may already be examining upcoming blockbusters before they are released!

    Please Jack Valenti, put a stop to this piracy, and sue Microsoft(r) for violations of the DMCA.
    </soapbox>

  53. No Farscape, No Sci-Fi Channel by TTMuskrat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have been boycotting the Sci-Fi channel since they dumped Farscape. If Taken gets good reviews, I will just get it on DVD when it comes out.

    --
    Support bacteria! It's the only culture most people seem to get.
    1. Re:No Farscape, No Sci-Fi Channel by ch0ke · · Score: 0

      Agreed. I can't help but think that money "saved" by cancelling Farscape is going to trash like this and SG1. *BARF*

    2. Re:No Farscape, No Sci-Fi Channel by calethix · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I second that motion. I used to be excited about Taken but after the Farscape fiasco, I decided no more Sci-Fi channel for me. In fact, I moved shortly after Farscape when on hiatus so I didn't even bother blowing the $50/mo on cable after that. Sure, I may only get 3 channels with my crappy antenna but I get Enterprise and Simpsons... not much else on that I care to watch :)

    3. Re:No Farscape, No Sci-Fi Channel by jackb_guppy · · Score: 2

      Same here.

      As I wrote to the head of SciFi Channel:

      Before dumping I-Man: View on actual TV, when showing: 5Hr on Friday, plus secondary runs tape and other channels.

      When they dumped I-Man: View on actual TV: 2Hrs Farscape only.

      When they add StarGate: 2 to 4 hours. StarGate was a so so view add.

      When they dropped FarScape: 0 hours.

      Now it is food channel: Iron Chef! - maybe they move Good Eats to Friday too!

      My house hold will *NOT* be watching the finally of FarScape... This season sucked anyway.

      But note: They sure wasted alot of $$$ on ADs on other channels for "TOOKEN". Now we know where the FarScape budget went.

    4. Re:No Farscape, No Sci-Fi Channel by stratjakt · · Score: 1

      >> My house hold will *NOT* be watching the finally of FarScape... This season sucked anyway.

      This season sucks! I'm not watching!

      How dare you cancel it!

      Gawd.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    5. Re:No Farscape, No Sci-Fi Channel by ciupman · · Score: 0

      You are cured my son!!! Welcome to reality

      --
      I fuse with Mercer every single day...
    6. Re:No Farscape, No Sci-Fi Channel by jackb_guppy · · Score: 1

      I was watching when it was sucking. Since there is no future and SciFi is now more than horror channel -- My household is "gone".

    7. Re:No Farscape, No Sci-Fi Channel by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 1

      What bugged me was that sci-fi had the gall to put farscape in their new comercials. Well, that and the fact that they apparently had the money to start yet another invevitably quickly canceled series (tremmors), and yet cancel the best show they had. I actually kind of liked the movies, but given the choice betwean farscape and tremmors I don't think it's much of a decision which I've enjoyed more.

      --
      Everything will be taken away from you.
    8. Re:No Farscape, No Sci-Fi Channel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have been boycotting the Sci-Fi channel since they dumped Farscape.

      Wow - that's funny, I was boycotting them until they dumped Farscape.

    9. Re:No Farscape, No Sci-Fi Channel by riiv · · Score: 1

      Well it used to be SciFi, then the Stargate channel when it lost Babylon5 reruns, now its the Ghost and Astrology channel.

      I'll take a pass on watching Speilberg's Money Train.

      --
      Unix is a standard, DOS is a standard, windows XX is not.
    10. Re:No Farscape, No Sci-Fi Channel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in case anyone was paying attention, farscape is returning for a new season starting on january 10th.

    11. Re:No Farscape, No Sci-Fi Channel by Any+Web+Loco · · Score: 1

      If you, and enough others like you, continue to boycott the Sci Fi channel, eventually it will cease to exist.

      How is that a Good Thing?

    12. Re:No Farscape, No Sci-Fi Channel by xagon7 · · Score: 1

      Um...not exactly.. they are continuing the final 11 episodes of the 4th and final season.

    13. Re:No Farscape, No Sci-Fi Channel by Photon+Ghoul · · Score: 2

      If the Sci Fi channel ceases to exist due to decreased viewership brought about by their disrespect of their own viewers, that will be a Very Good Thing. (I do believe that they may be closing down or moving completely away from it's niche eventually, however, due to corporate reshuffling as Vivendi continues to struggle.)

      How will this be Very Good? It will send a very clear message that they have everyday people, not just Nielson families, choosing whether or not to view their programming and spots. Sci Fi (and those higher up the chain of corporate ownership) will not hear this message, but it will be there for the industry as a whole. If it goes down in a burning bonfire of rehashed paranormal and B-movie master tapes, then that message is only so much louder.

  54. damnit by WPIDalamar · · Score: 2

    Missed it, maybe it's finally time for a tivo. But the last mini series rocked!

  55. Spielberg - quit while you are ahead! by mcguyver · · Score: 0

    I did not see the show but why bother? TV was overflowing with alien abduction movies a few years ago. Anything that Spielberg can put together has already been done. More power to Spielberg because he is a talented guy but this idea ranks up there with Travolta's sequel to Battlefield Earth.

  56. Charles Darwin didn't dress like an iguana by burgburgburg · · Score: 3, Funny
    The Beagle sailed up to the Galapagos Islands. The men, including Darwin, got into boats, rowed over and explored the islands (and got water and food, etc).

    They didn't skulk about. They didn't dress up like swimming iguanas or giant tortises.

    They explored, and observed (and for Marco and Chris, traded). None of them hid, themselves of their purposes.

  57. Ohhh sure .. by SuperDuG · · Score: 5, Funny
    You all mod the "Steven King Dead at 55" posts to -1, but you publish "Spielberg's Taken" on the front page???

    wait ... taken was the name of a show ...

    --
    Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
  58. Pandering by Doug+Merritt · · Score: 2
    I watched the full two hours, and I'll watch at least a little more, but I think it is simple pandering to the current UFO fad that seems to have been re-ignited by the X-files.

    Everything that has happened seems like it's just rehashing the cliche'd mythos: crash at Roswell, abductions, military cover-up, etc etc etc.

    All of this stuff was really old news even back in the 60's; is the show going to dare to do anything new at all?

    I doubt it, but I'll watch a bit more to give Spielberg the benefit of the doubt.

    --
    Professional Wild-Eyed Visionary
  59. Re: Probed out? by glam0006 · · Score: 0

    But will there be any anal probing? I would really like to see that.

  60. Alternative by glam0006 · · Score: 0

    Anal probing. 'Nuff said.

  61. On the uk version of sci fi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They don't show crap like this!!!!

    1. Re:On the uk version of sci fi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  62. Galacttic Anal Probing Inc.. by RatBastard · · Score: 2

    Do you have any idea how many aliens are employed by Galactic Anal Probing Inc.? If they didn't abduct us and anal probe us their economy would colapse!

    --
    Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
    1. Re:Galacttic Anal Probing Inc.. by Hanashi · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I've seen these in the mall, but I've never been into The GAP. I always thought they were just clothing stores...

      --
      Check out my eclectic infosec blog at InfoSecPotpou
    2. Re:Galacttic Anal Probing Inc.. by mcmonkey · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why do we do these anal probes anyway?

      All we've discovered is 1 subject in 10 doesn't mind.

  63. cableless.... by dbizzle · · Score: 1

    i dont' have cable, i'm so sad...

  64. The Death of SCIFI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I can't help feeling that I was watching a weird mélange of Spielberg's visual sensibilities all in one film.

    I also am seeing, what appears to me, to be the beginning of the end for the Sci-Fi channel.

    The first clue was canning Farscape. While it may not have been a ratings powerhouse, it was arguably one of the most creative shows on television - and elevated the SciFI genre far beyond it's peers. The show was perceived as the fledgling channel's flagship show and, when combined with it's on-air identity, really got folks pumped-up about the SCIFI brand. I wish more conglomerates understood the power of a franchise beyond it's initial ratings.

    The second clue is the channels reaction to John Edwards and it's new-show-to-be "The Dream Team with Annabelle and Michael". These are shows that are cheap to produce, attract a strong female audience - if not skew heavy female - and get ratings. Despite the fact that these shows are only marginally related to "science fiction/fantasy" etc. and are better suited aired on it's USA sister channel - belies the fact that they are polluting what made the Sci-Fi channel so strong to begin with and what gives these shows such strong lead-ins.

    The third clue is the new on-air ID and identity spots currently running. I speak from experience here, as I am a broadcast designer who has done some high profile work as well as sit-in on the meetings where the politics of changing something as momentous as a logo are in full-play. First let me say this: The new logo is clunky and horrible and the new spots that I have seen are mostly insipid and mushy. Everyone I know in the Broadcast Design/ID business has for years been in agreement with me when I say "SciFi has the best, most innovative broadcast design on the planet. No contest". The work now looks like it was designed by a committee and not a visionary. What's particularly telling is the new logo. Why on earth change the logo? The old logo is far superior to the ham-fisted hack-job logo they now use. The only thing I can think of, and if anyone has any information on this I'd love to hear it, is that "new management" came in and wanted to put their stamp on everything. The whole "If it ain't broke - I'm gonna fix it anyway 'cause im the new person!" seems pretty strong here.

    In conclusion, SCIFI is trading Farscape for John Edwards and in the process losing its soul. Instead of watching a particular show, I would watch "SCIFI" - I don't do that anymore, I pick and choose from a rapidly shrinking pool of shows I want to see. And the shows that do remain could be as easily shown on many other, less distinct, channels. I'm sure "The Dream Team" would do just as well on VH1. So sad to see you go SCIFI, it was fun while it lasted.

    1. Re:The Death of SCIFI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was talking with my parents earlier yesterday while they were flipping channels. They crossed Sci Fi, and the first thing I noticed was that new logo in the lower right of the screen.

      What I noticed most was how lame it was. It was the most unimaginative and bland logo change I've seen in recent years.

      I'm glad someone else noticed it.

    2. Re:The Death of SCIFI by kalidasa · · Score: 2

      Why isn't parent a 5 yet? This is the only possible explanation for those god-awful ads, the elimination of everything space in favor of mumbo-jumbo, etc.: Sci Fi wants the crystal power crowd. Probably the current management are crystal power types.

    3. Re:The Death of SCIFI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I can't help feeling that I was watching a weird mélange of Spielberg's visual sensibilities all in one film.

      The aliens are taking people to Arrakis?

    4. Re:The Death of SCIFI by vanyel · · Score: 2

      I agree; I specifically avoided watching Taken as the last thing I want is to encourage them to continue in this direction. Frankly, with Steven Spielberg being used to market it so much, I'm pretty sure it's the audience that's getting taken, but I'm just not interested in alien abduction stories, unless of course they want to make a movie of Have Space Suit, Will Travel. Admittedly in Heinlein's juvenile collection, but it was my first science fiction book and hooked me immediately.

  65. They must be expecting us to record it by cardshark2001 · · Score: 2

    I mean, who can commit 2 hours every day for 10 days to watch the show (besides the slashdot crowd, I mean).

    --
    WWJD? JWRTFA!
  66. They were mostly meta-commercials by Doug+Merritt · · Score: 2
    Subjectively it seems like 90% of the commercials during Taken were for upcoming 2003 shows on the SciFi channel -- meta-commercials, you could call them, since obviously there's no direct income from people watching them, only an indirect effect by inducing people to watch more SciFi channel next year, and to then see commercials that bring revenue.

    What's the economic slant on watching versus skipping meta-commercials??

    For what it's worth, I watched an unusually high percentage of them. I had fallen somewhat out of touch with the SciFi channel and I was fascinated by some of the teasers for next year.

    (Although doubtless I'm a glutton for punishment...imagine me being gullible enough to actually look forward to seeing Children of Dune. They'll punish me with a poor production, of course.)

    BTW you are implying that the Dot Com Bomb happened due to loss of confidence of advertising sponsors, but that's not the case.

    Most of it was companies overspending without a good business model (including those who idiotically thought they could make billions from banner ads).

    The exact definition of the boom and crash is multi-faceted, so it's also fair to say that another part of it was an unrealistic run-up in stock prices (by both professionals and amateurs) to unmaintainable levels measured by any means (price to book, price to conceivable future earnings, etc etc).

    To imply that it was a matter of things like Replay users skipping ads, people installing ad-blockers on their browsers, Napster users sharing music, etc, is to grossly misunderstand recent history.

    --
    Professional Wild-Eyed Visionary
  67. It used to be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Someone had told me once that cable TV was advertisment free. That was how they were able to sell it. No adds, but you need to pay for the shows. Over time ads crept in. So, I'm told.

  68. Taken by minairia · · Score: 1

    This was an above average show. I liked how the aliens were not sweet and good but have a dark agenda of some kind. I also like how they use their magic powers to trick girls into the hayloft and, once the girl is knocked up, disappear in flash of light. No ET here!! More like shore leave in Thailand. I was really worried it would turn into this other show that was on Fox a while back (I forget the title) where an abductee steels a flying saucer, escapes back to Earth and gets shot down by the Airforce (so far, deeply cool). Then, to my utter dismay, the abductee grows long hair and goes around healing plants. I was hoping the Airforce would debrief him, take the alien technology and then go and abduct some greys. One can only dream. "Taken", though, is pretty solid so far, not great, but definitely the reason I have a Tivo. It doesn't get too smary (other than that annoying sweet child narration [this worries me -- I hope the child turns out to really evil or something])

    1. Re:Taken by rootmonkey · · Score: 1

      I was kinda thinking the same thing about the girl narrator, like it was actually an alien, perhaps it turns out to be the baby that concieved in the shed (although older cause I don't think alien babies can talk till they are older, they might beable to crawl up walls though).

      --

      Yes but every time I try to see it your way, I get a headache.
    2. Re:Taken by Scrameustache · · Score: 2

      I liked how the aliens were not sweet and good but have a dark agenda of some kind.

      Yeah, because that's never been done before... *cough*X Files*cough*Independance Day/V*cough*Invasion of the body snatchers*cough*Plan 9 from outer space*cough*war of the worlds*cough**cough**cough*

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

  69. A colonel in charge of the ultra-secret project? by Slave1007 · · Score: 1

    In the old movies about UFO, generals used to run the show. But now, a colonel? And, even a captain can get his head into this? And, how can an ET make a female human pregnant? That remind me something about the donkey+horse.

  70. yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I liked this movie better when it was called Signs

    1. Re:yawn by Modern+Fix · · Score: 1

      (slight spoiler) Heh, yeah, I thought that too during the 'board up the windows' scene. Was waiting for the little girl to leave cups of water around. But really, nothing new in this flick. Cars turn off when alien ships are around. Blood noses. Kids have more intuition then adults. Aliens are totally powerful yet get hampered by simple things like weather balloons (and in Signs, doorknobs).

  71. Oh Damn, by nlinecomputers · · Score: 1

    Now I have to go and buy tampons, depends, and diet Pepsi.

    And damn I was bored one day and watched an infomerical. Now I've got to buy a "bowflex" too.

    --
    Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
  72. Looks like a potential X-Files ripoff... by Bamafan77 · · Score: 1

    International conspiracy. Alien abductions. Cover ups. Sure X-files didn't originate this stuff, but it did it the best (for about 5 seasons or so).

    But I haven't seen it yet, so I won't prematurely bash it for unoriginality. At the same time, I can enjoy unoriginality as long as it's good unoriginiality...if that makes sense. :)

  73. 24 isn't on every single day by Doug+Merritt · · Score: 2
    Not the same at all. 24 comes on once a week, a much smaller commitment than asking people to watch every single f*#&ing day for two weeks, two hours every night.

    Back in the 80's, the miniseries Roots and Shogun did manage to get people to ditch their lives for a little while, but they offered something new and different and informative. Taken is just a rehash of flying saucer mythos we've already heard endlessly.

    I was however amused; instead of the usual (ahem) probing, judging by all the nosebleeds, they were getting nasal-probed instead. :-)

    --
    Professional Wild-Eyed Visionary
    1. Re:24 isn't on every single day by renderhead · · Score: 1
      Not to mention that Roots was aired during one of the worst blizzards that the east coast and midwest had seen in many years. Thousands of people were unable or unwilling to leave their homes for days. That factor, combined with the fact that most people were still watching one of the big three networks at any given time, made Roots enormously successful.

      Now more than ever it is difficult to make a miniseries succeed because there is so much other television to choose from. Doubly so on a cable station like Sci-Fi which isn't offered in all cable service plans or even all areas.

      --
      I wish that my inferiority complex were as good as yours.

      -RenderHead

  74. SciFi Channel Scheduling by ChuckDivine · · Score: 1

    I was planning to skip "Taken." I'm pretty busy and don't have all that much time for TV.

    Then yesterday, the Washington Post's reviewer called it "cable TV's Roots." So I programmed the VCR -- and also caught a few minutes last night. Seems good.

    But why are they running this epic miniseries in December? I can understand why not in a sweeps month -- the channel isn't all that popular yet. But December? People already have lots of things to do this month. I've got three parties, a concert and an SF convention to attend in the next two weeks. As a "break out" strategy the scheduling seems plain dumb. Running "Taken" in January would seem a much better idea.

    --
    "Beer is proof God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- B. Franklin
  75. Taken: X-Files Meets E.T. by zafod · · Score: 1

    Overdone, overplayed, commercialistic hollywoood-land predigested schmaltzy Pap for the Masses. Gad. I am so sick of Bileburg and his "Ballcap-hey-I'm-just-a-regular-Joe-with-200- million-bucks" act I could hurl, not to mention 90% of his flics.

    His material is just _so accessible_ and _formula_. Add: Adorable children, well-scrubbed wholesome families, pure and noble patriarchs and matriarchs, season heavily with saccharine, and shake until queasy. You laugh, you cry.

    Yawn.

    And as such, it will be a Great Success, despite the fact that, according to a recent survey, the public's interest in "Aliens" is at it's lowest point ever. Why? 'Cause all you need to succeed in today's "splinter market" is 100,000 or so whackos who believe that aliens are among us and are using us as breath freshners. In today's America, it's a guaranteed find. And Sci-Fi's got 'em watching.

    (Which is not to berate that channel; it's got some very good REAL Sci-Fi on it.)

    Gad, when is Hollywoodland going to hire some REAL sci-fi writers, not just some super-rich schmaltz mill, to make good sci-fi flics?

  76. Canada by Vampyre_Dark · · Score: 1

    Any of my fellow Canadians know if it's airing in Canada? Or do we have to wait 6 months until SPACE picks it up?

    1. Re:Canada by Vampyre_Dark · · Score: 1

      Damn, no replies.. Maybe my fellow Canadians were TAKEN?

    2. Re:Canada by overkil6 · · Score: 1

      I've tried to hunt it down as well. I have ExpressVu and notta on that. Looks like we'll have to wait until Space picks it up, or one of the movie channels like they did with Band of Brothers.

  77. Re:If I could reach into the computer to beat you. by IIRCAFAIKIANAL · · Score: 2

    Are you coming on to him (or her ... or it)? :]

    [/goodhearted humour]

    --
    Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.
  78. I felt Taken for wasting two hours watching it... by iiioxx · · Score: 2

    My wife and I (both sci-fi fans as well as SF fans, for those keen enough to know the difference) tuned in to watch Taken last night, somewhat put out that it preempted our usual Monday night four-hour Stargate fix, but hopeful nonetheless.

    Well, my wife was Taken by the sandman about halfway through, and I was Taken by a game of Rolling Thunder on my laptop. What a SNOOZEFEST! After about an hour, I found myself scrolling through the onscreen guide to see what I was missing.

    I finished watching it out of the hope for some twist to keep me hanging on for the next episode... no luck. I think I'll pass on this series.

  79. Not seen it but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... the trailers I have seen were a turnoff, in that they are presented as being accounts of true events. And, quite frankly, I can't give much credit to the abduction mumbo jumbo.

  80. Compare the best prices on: Consumer Electronics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Anyone else notice that in the related links: bar? advertising slowly engulfs slashdot...

  81. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wrestling is for homosecksuals. You, res0, and sean horan forever.

  82. wah fucking wah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well that's just too bad for you, isn't it?

    shut yer hole, ya punter

  83. Why all UFO movies are stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    crash at Roswell, abductions, military cover-up, etc etc etc.

    How the hell does a military of humans cover up a race of beings who have conquered inter-galatic travel? We would be to them as ants are to us.

    1. Re:Why all UFO movies are stupid by Gaijin42 · · Score: 2

      the aliens want to not be widely known, or at least aren't advertizing themselves. so we only have to cover up the occasional slip.

      The cover up is against the humans, not the aliens. Your idea would be correct if we were trying to hide OURSELVES from the aliens, which is not the case.

    2. Re:Why all UFO movies are stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it that EVERYONE seems to insist that an alien race MUST be light years ahead of us technologically if they can travel intersteller distances in short order? Maybe they are like Ferengi and they stole the technology from someone else? Maybe their social / cultural evolution is different because nature presented a different set of problems or they didnt blow themselves into oblivion every 50 years or so like we humans seem to? Imagine how technologically advanced WE would be if, since the Roman Empire, there had never been another war, but there was a compelling reason for humanity to throw themselves at space travel to get off this rock.

      I bet we'd be out there by now...

    3. Re:Why all UFO movies are stupid by fgb · · Score: 1

      Even if they stole the technology; if they can't maintain it, it will soon be completely useless to them.

    4. Re:Why all UFO movies are stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the hell does a military of humans cover up a race of beings who have conquered inter-galatic travel? We would be to them as ants are to us.

      No, we would be to them as stone-age peoples are to us. Your logic is the same silly logic that implies that the pyramids must have been built by aliens because clearly "primitive" societies couldn't have done that.

      Given that we can begin to understand numerous technologies and ideas that might give us the stars, I don't see the gap between us and a starfaring race as being any greater in degree than the difference between us and stone-age human beings. Much less a difference in kind.

      And if you think stone-age societies are populated by idiots, you're a fool. Differences in techology do not imply differences in intelligence.

      As an illustration, an alien race which was somewhat stupider (on average) than humanity but patient and relatively nonviolent might have plenty of time to master enough science and technology to travel the stars. It might take them 10 or 50 times as long as it might take us. But even if it takes us 50,000 years to go from stone-age to starfaring, the 500,000 - 2.5 million years required for them to do the same is but a drop in the galatic bucket o' time.

    5. Re:Why all UFO movies are stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the aliens want to not be widely known, or at least aren't advertizing themselves. so we only have to cover up the occasional slip.

      No. They have no reason to want to hide from us. Unless you are some weirdo who hides himself from ants all day.

      The cover up is against the humans, not the aliens.

      No shit, asswipe. The point is that a race several orders of magnitude more advanced than us would be impossible to cover up.

    6. Re:Why all UFO movies are stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're the idiot.

      To use your analogy, would a stone age tribe was discovered somewhere by us, would the tribe leaders be sucessful in covering us up over a fifty year time span? I'd think not.

  84. Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We'll definitely be having a LAN* party while we watch Taken at my house.

    Come on over.

    *LAN = Lubed Anal Nightstick

  85. *Taken* so long to tell a short story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Other than the fact that this looks like another patented Spielberg *child point of view* story, the first episode seemed to be more interested in taking up 2 hours that it did trying to tell a good story. I guess that I was expecting way too much based on the promotion.

    The story is predictable, the acting is o.k. at best, the special effects are uninteresting, and I kept finding myself swithching to the Monday night football game to keep from falling asleep. Maybe if they shortened it 50 percent by getting rid of all of the soap opra'ish fluff, it would be more tolerable. As it stands now, I can't wait for the next Dune installment! The 5 second teaser for that was even better than the 1st episode of this "Taken" thing.

  86. Bad choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashbots consider that top entertainment.

  87. T*KEN by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    1. I hate the logo. The 'A' in taken consists of a human figure with arms and legs out ascending through the sky, illuminated by a burst of backlighting. The lighting is more prominent than the figure, so it looks like the title reads 'TOKEN'.

    2. I liked this series better the first time... when it was called "Amazing Stories".

    (oh yeah, and 3. ???, 4. Profit.)

    1. Re:T*KEN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the first rev of the logo, with the ascending body was cooler. Now the body just spreads it's limbs. Not nearly as evocative to me...

  88. Missed it, but don't care by SataiCam · · Score: 1

    I missed it, but I don't care too much. No wonder SciFi was complaining about Farscape costing too much: they spent all their dough on a "brand name." You can't tell me something with Spielberg's name tacked to it came without a nice, hefty price tag. I guess if it's good, they'll put it on DVD like their Dune series, and if it's not, they'll play it profusely back to back with Tremors 3.

  89. Glad it was on, ... by r_j_prahad · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... it cured my insomnia.

  90. No Farscape, No Sci-Fi Channel - AMEN by NickFusion · · Score: 2

    There was precious little on cable my wife and I wanted to watch, and Farscape was the last straw. Now a peice speaker wire brings us Buffy over some kind of invisible "airwaves."

    Screw me Sci Fi? No...screw you, and the AT&T you rode in on.

    Now it's $20 a month for Net Flix, and I still save $30 over the cost of cable.

    --
    What were you expecting?
  91. Han called first! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How'd Greedo shoot first if he was holding a walkie-talkie?

  92. Re:Dumbass... x2 by JTMON · · Score: 1

    so is mispelling the word retarded when calling someone it. LOL

  93. Re:Compare the best prices on: Consumer Electronic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mentioned this a while ago and was subsequently mod bombed.

  94. junk culture by mito · · Score: 0

    Taco, why do you think "folks" care about your junk culture. I mean, TV series?!

    Just 'cause we're nerds and geeks don't mean we consume any sci-fi stupidity. Actually free-sofware geeks found on Slashdot have higher standards on average, are more independant-minded, self-directed. I expect them not to eat at the mass-media trough, like you seem to assume.

    So please don't encourage them.

    Do you sometimes see a theatre play, a jazz concert, some other independent-artist live performance? Something actually not in the realm of the MPAA?

    I'd like to hear about it.

  95. Chris Carter Should Sue by DoNotTauntHappyFunBa · · Score: 1

    From the promo spots, this looks EXACTLY like the X-Files. Spaceships, bright lights, military activity, even a person with dark fluid in their eyes. Some of this may be due to common source material, but the visuals seemed way too similar.

    As a devoted Farscape fan, I am not going to watch Sci-Fi if I can avoid it. Can anyone who saw the first episode comment on visual similarities? Maybe some episodes will be different due to the different directors. Or maybe this series will have a better ending than the X-Files did?

    --
    Well, hey, I didn't spend all those years playing Dungeons and Dragons and not learn a little something about courage.
  96. Oh, dear, now look what you've unleashed: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Be on notice, this posting will be cited as prior art for any business plan patents!

    1. Hire hitman
    2. Set up website allowing users to schedule face-stabbings
    3. ????
    4. Profit!
    5. (GO TO JAIL!)
  97. Somebody got took by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well I watched it last night and I can say it lived up to it's name sake. Someone got took and it wasn't by they aliens.

    --

    Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

  98. Oh. Well then by babbage · · Score: 2
    If Spielberg's Taken, can I have Kubrick?

    heh, sorry, couldn't resist...

    1. Re:Oh. Well then by kubrick · · Score: 2

      If Spielberg's Taken, can I have Kubrick?

      Sorry, the aliens got me too...

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
  99. "...premiered last night on SciFi last night." by eatenn · · Score: 2, Funny

    A few people submitted asking for an open discussion for Spielberg's Taken miniseries that premiered last night on SciFi last night.

    Today Slashdot destroyed my ability to speak properly today.

    --
    "But the cars are all flashing me, bright lights are passing me, I feel life passing me by" - Stiff Little Fingers
  100. Am I missing something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A Spielberg show about "encounters" with aliens?

    Or how about this new film from Wes Craven called "They"? It appears to be about "nightmares" that kill.

    It's bad enough that Hollywood newbies can't come up with original story ideas but now the veterans are rehashing their own ideas!

  101. Compressed schedule by spazoid12 · · Score: 1

    would be better. Get it all over with quickly. Then, cancel Farscape. Then, make sure no Star Trek is ever shown again. Finally, cast Jon Katz as Stanley's gay lover on Lexx.

  102. Online Preview/Commercial by antdude · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Is there a streaming video/video file of this show? I am curious what it looks like. I was unable to find any on Taken's Web site.

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  103. Aren't nerds supposed to be smart? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You'd think this "elite" portion of society would have figured it out by now that television was not for their benefit, and distanced themselves from such a blatently manipulative information source rather than immerse themselves into it.

    That's not smart. Quit being a bottom feeder. GIGO.

  104. What do I think? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What do folks think?

    I think you all are spending too much money on cable/satellite TV.

    You probably have cell phones too.

    Sheesh.

    (Not a Luddite, just someone who doesn't see the value proposition on these items the same way that other folks apparently do)

  105. I'll jus kazaalite the divx.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...nothing beats glitchy mpeg2 ripped off a TIVO!

  106. Miniseries in the USA by John+Harrison · · Score: 2
    In other countries most shows are miniseries. In Brazil for instance, though a show might last 18 months, it has a story arc that will eventaully take it to some end. If the show is very popular then sub-plots will be added to lengthen it. If it is a stinker it will get resolved quickly. But the point of it is to tell a story that ends. Now I am not a big fan of the soap-opera production values or the same show being on everyday at 8 pm, but the idea of a story to be told with a beginning and end is interesting.

    Not so in the USA. How many years has Friends been running? Has anything really happened? Not really. Most shows in the USA feel the need to conclude an episode with all issues being resolved so that nothing has changed in the world that has been created. Contrast this with 24. It has a season-long plot and watching the episodes in order is important. Hopefully the popularity of 24 will lead to more shows that are actually going somewhere plot-wise instead of running in place for the whole season, an hour at a time.

    1. Re:Miniseries in the USA by wednesdaywar · · Score: 1

      It's a little misleading to compare Friends (a Sit-Com) to 24 (a Drama). There are miles of difference between the two. Also, the Brits have made lots of sit-com type shows with no ending in sight, so this is hardly a "USA" problem. Beginning to end stories can be great, no argument there. But even they get co-opted and subverted by the big dollar. Babylon 5 was doing fine until the cancellation scare in season 4 which skewed the rest of the run into the mostly uneccessary category. And the idea of adding sub-plots that have little to do with the main story strikes me as not that different than the sitcom ideal of keeping a show going when it's doing well.

    2. Re:Miniseries in the USA by John+Harrison · · Score: 2
      And the idea of adding sub-plots that have little to do with the main story strikes me as not that different than the sitcom ideal of keeping a show going when it's doing well.

      Actually they did exactly this with 24. If it had been canceled halfway through its run there was an ending prepared.

      Also, I picked Friends because it was a easy target but the same can be said of any drama as well. There is no end in sight and no point other than continued survival until it runs out of gas.

    3. Re:Miniseries in the USA by wednesdaywar · · Score: 1

      You may indeed be right. I had read that they also ran into trouble in that they had planned for the assassination attempt to happen in the 21st hour, but it ended up happening in the 8th, due to the story moving more quickly because of the timescale. This year they've taken to writing in 6 hours chunks with the full story outlined in advance. Friends is indeed an easy target, but one of the few sitcoms that is as well written today as when it started. It's also at the top of its game both script and popularity-wise.

    4. Re:Miniseries in the USA by John+Harrison · · Score: 2

      I am not saying that we shouldn't have Friends or shows like it. I do think that there is room for a different type of show, a long mini-series if you will, than what we are fed in the US. Imagine the Lord of the Rings done as 20 one-hour episodes, or Cryptonomicon as a 15 episode HBO production.

  107. X-Files by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is why Chris Carter never let Steven direct an X-Files - what Chris Carter tells in under an hour apparently is going to take Steven over 20 hours? Huh?

    Frankly I don't have 2 hours every evening to devote to watching Sci-Fi.

  108. Spielberger's a hack! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He needs to get over these imaginary 'NAZI's! Like anyone would believe that the world would stand by and allow some power mad meglomaniac with a mustache kill off 6,000,000 people! Think about it, people! He's just ripping off Joseph Stalin! If he was any good as a writer/director/producer, he would have come up with some more believable villians, like the ones in the documentary film 'V'.

  109. Sci-Fi will profit anyway by BlueAlien.Org · · Score: 1

    Since Sci-Fi fronted the cost for this mini-series, then they will end up profiting off of a DVD sale. So, I am not sure what you will actually gain by buying it on DVD instead of watching it on the tube.

    - Rick

    --


    www.bluealien.org
    Prophets of the Blue Alien
  110. NEEEEEEEERD! by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    Look in the big blue room, I'm sure you'll find here there!

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  111. Stargate SG-1 returning by rilian4 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Stargate is returning Monday December 16th and 23rd. According to scifi.com's stargate-sg1 page, Stargate will be airing new Episodes on Friday's starting January 10th.

    --

    ...quicker, easier, more seductive the darkside is...but more powerful, it is not.
    1. Re:Stargate SG-1 returning by jmccay · · Score: 2

      You forgot to mention that series 5 is currently playing on various channels. It's playing on Fox in the Metro Boston, MA area (NH/MA) Saturdays at 5pm (unfortunately running opposite Andromeda) and Sundays at 11AM unless it gets bumped for Patriots pregame show. Its only happened once so far.

      --
      At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
    2. Re:Stargate SG-1 returning by rilian4 · · Score: 1

      Good points. Thanks for reminding me. Fox is airing SG1 on Sunday nights at 9pm on the west coast too.
      At least you have a football team that can win games that is pre-empting you!

      --

      ...quicker, easier, more seductive the darkside is...but more powerful, it is not.
  112. Re:A colonel in charge of the ultra-secret project by CrystalCut · · Score: 1

    First, there was that short scene where government scientists were abashed that they could not pinpoint WHAT the aliens were made of, because their organic tissues seemed to respond to whatever test was thrown at them, and became what the test was looking for. That scene was VERY bad, imho, as it was too short, and so completely portrayed in laymen's terms it probably went unnoticed. If these aliens could replicate human tissue, then it goes without saying that stretching the truth about their "compatibility" with us isn't reaching that far.

    Second, Owen Crawford's character, as the Colonel (who is promoted to Major, btw, in the first episode), GROWS to become a key government official in charge of the Roswell case. He's supposed to be the "human" villain element, and I think he will play such a part quite well.

    I've been pretty anxious for this series to start. I watched the first episode last night, and will be taping the rest and watching it when I have time. I feel that 20 episodes is extreme, but at least they will have a chance to play everything out properly. Like someone else mentioned here, I'll respond to this series if, at the very least, it's "good unoriginality".

  113. mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I have yet to hear a remotely reasonable explanation as to why an alien species would expend the enormous amounts of energy it would take to get to the one of the obscure spokes of the galaxy"

    obviously, they read slashdot and want to download the latest mozilla 1.2.1 release

  114. Re:Dumbass... x2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and how about misspelling "misspelling?"

  115. Re:Not worth watching - MOD BIGOT DOWN by AyeRoxor! · · Score: 1

    "But the masses of impatient Americans tuned out because the first 10 minutes..."

    Give the insult America crap a rest. What's your problem?

  116. Re:Taken (Spoiler) by Gaijin42 · · Score: 2

    There were some ads for taken about a month ago, and she was talking about how she is 1/4 alien, because her dad was 1/2 alien.

    she is the kid of the kid.

    I told you it was a spoiler, and it was in the commercials, so that isn't really even a spoiler. So there.

  117. Same feeling for farscape by Gary · · Score: 1

    I have a similar feeling for farscape. I just couldn't get into a space ship with muppets on it! I kept expecting to see Miss Piggy pop in looking for Kermit.

    G.

  118. What's "Sci Fi"? by Mr.+No+Skills · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I like Science Fiction, I'd like to check it out! What's the URL? How much bandwidth do you need to see it?

    --
    Sleep is for the Weak
  119. What do you guys have against 'just shoot me' ? by danny256 · · Score: 1

    I really like that show :)

    1. Re:What do you guys have against 'just shoot me' ? by stinky+wizzleteats · · Score: 1

      Because, intelligent geeks must like only intellectually engaging and meaningful shows, like Jackass, the Simpsons, Monty Python, and South Park. :)

  120. waitaminit... by demo9orgon · · Score: 2

    With all the restraining orders and paid security, you would think he would have some peace. Poor chap, and now he's been TAKEN. We should take a moment to remember there's always time for Kubrication. (owiee..owiee...I won't do that again, I promise.)

    --
    Every new form of media has it's own Requirimento
  121. Re:Dumbass... x2 by JTMON · · Score: 0

    did I say I was NOT retarded? I think not DIRK!

  122. Lets rename it. by captfi · · Score: 0

    "Steve Beers" Taken! First reasons is, well, his name is beers! I can't drink Spielbergs. And also I have been informed by very high up sources (I haven't. I'm lying but wtf) that the only thing Spielberg did was fart in one of the editing suites to get his name on the credits. Mr Beers worked on The A-Team ffs! He deserves the credit more than The Goonies guy does.

    --
    "Never trust a computer you can't throw." -- The Mac
  123. Confidence as the basis for systems by Doug+Merritt · · Score: 2
    Sarcasm aside, if confidence is the only thing holding a system together, maybe it's time for it to collapse.

    Nay nay! Confidence is exactly the mechanism that makes many useful systems work:

    • currency (especially immediately after a transition away from a gold standard, but even now as the reason why the U.S. dollar is considered the replacement for the gold standard internationally),
    • banks and banking deposits (consider panics and runs, as in South America quite recently),
    • politics (if people lose confidence in the food supply and think they'll starve, they'll try to revolt),
    • dating (just try to strike up conversations with strangers if you have no self-confidence :-)
    --
    Professional Wild-Eyed Visionary
    1. Re:Confidence as the basis for systems by Nutcase · · Score: 2

      Well, you are in fact correct, but I think the whole internet crash was a good thing. and if television, movies, and music can't adapt their business models to fit in with technology, then they should crash too.

      Just for the sake of it, let me say that I think currency and banking are really both directly tracable to confidence in the government. And that confidence mostly comes from the fact that they have guns. Anything less than revolution means jail and or pain. Which makes arranging a revolution decidedly difficult.

      Now the dating example is a good one. I find I usually get self-confidence after I start dating a girl. Which means I have needed to develop a new strategy - Unflinching Optimism. It works. And for only 19.95 I will email you the secret as to how. ;P

  124. Well whoever the little girl is by muddy_mudskipper · · Score: 1

    Well whoever the little girl is, her narrative is DAMN annoying!

    "My work here is almost done, and I'm not going to let anything stand in my way!"

    Spielberg's disdain of the military couldn't be more evident. He had to make the "ROTC fag", who was really interesting for about 70 minutes or so, just another thug in a uniform (who's willing to kill innocent yet slutty-like women in order to get his way)

    The alien CGI could've been better (although the opening World War II airplane scenes were pretty cool)

    She might not've been the prettiest girl, but the Colonel's daughter did have dark hair, and I'm sure glasses are only a step away! Besides, she's the evil ROTC fag's sun and the moon.

    The B-17 bomber pilot, the last member of his squadron still alive, was captured with his crew by aliens who started torturing them. The aliens had left a machine gun in the operating room. Using his secret power of adrenaline, the bomber pilot (who had also been gutshot by .50 cal German machine guns, don't forget) overpowered the aliens and grabbed the machine gun, mowing the aliens down. In flashback, he couldn't remember what really happened and thought they had been Nazis, not aliens. Unless, of course, they were Nazi aliens.

    Having a lot of the episode in Texas follows historical fact. Carswell AFB was in Fort Worth and was closed in the early 1990s; before transferring to Air Force control, it was Fort Worth Army Airfield (Ft. Worth AAF). Fort Worth AAF was the regional headquarters for the Army Air Force at that time. Roswell Army Air Force base would have been part of the Fort Worth District. There was in reality a debriefing over the "Roswell Incident" at Fort Worth.

    The same concept applies today; Fort Sam Houston is the headquarters of the Southwest Installation Management agency, of which Fort Hood is now part of. Also, Fort Hood and most of Texas and New Mexico are within the Fort Worth District of the Army Corps of Engineers (The Galveston District of the Corps makes up the Gulf Coast, Valley, and Houston).

    Also, since Lubbock isn't too terribly far from Roswell (from Roswell head east on US 380 to Brownfield, TX, then head north on US 62 to Lubbock, about the same distance as from San Antonio to Corpus) it's possible that one of the aliens ended up in Lubbock.

    Finally, Fort Bliss was/is a pretty big base, it straddles Texas and New Mexico (Fort Stewart also straddles Kentucky and Tennessee), it's close to Roswell, and would've had a much larger hospital than the Roswell base.

    "Episode 2: Attack of the Greys" is tonight, with a repeat of last nights' debacle/episode/pilot/promising show that rapidly turned into a piece of crap before, I think at 6.

    PS my last thoughts are these, besides, "I waited 12 months for this?"

    1. THEY CANCELLED FARSCAPE TO FINANCE THIS debacle/episode/pilot/promising show that rapidly turned into a piece of crap?!!

    2. THEY CANCELLED FARSCAPE TO MAKE WAY FOR "TREMORS: THE SERIES?!?!? AT LEAST "SHE LIKES HER SHORTS SHORT!" Gawd.

    3. OH WAIT! THEY CANCELLED FARSCAPE TO MAKE WAY FOR "THE DREAM TEAM!!!!"

    Notice that SciFi starts their new logo with "IF" that fades into Sci Fi? Well, WHAT "IF" THEY'D FORGOTTEN THE AFOREMENTIONED ABORTIONS OF SCIENCE FICTION AND RENEWED FARSCAPE ANOTHER TWO YEARS??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

    1. Re:Well whoever the little girl is by Phantom_24 · · Score: 0

      Pretty much agree with everything said by Muddy here.....INCLUDING the Farscape issue!!!

      Who the F'n....God D*#n....Son abeaches.......C$$$ smokers think they were cancelling one of the COOLEST sci-fi series of all times??
      Now I have to settle with the DVD box sets (as long as Sci Fi doesn't get a damn penny from them), as well as hoping that the movie that was announced recently actually gets made!

    2. Re:Well whoever the little girl is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WARNING: You have allowed yourself to become emotionally invested in your television. This makes you especially vulnerable to suggestion. Whoring out your mind to the marketer's social engineers in return for some pathetic bits of fiction.

  125. Steven Spielberg's Presents Taken by corebreech · · Score: 2

    ...That would have made a better title. It's like somebody took away his special-effects dept. and so he had to make do with things like bad matte paintings and the oh-so-clichéd alien-appears-as-human device.

    The coolest thing about this episode were the commercials the Sci-Fi Channel ran. That mutant kid with the wings and the suction-cup fingers almost made me spill my beer. Little fucker.

    I'll tune in tonight, just to see if there are new commercials.

  126. Yes, but no. by Doug+Merritt · · Score: 2
    I sympathize with your broad position, but your chosen expression, well, sucks, because you're saying right out that audiences can't critique movies, only movie-makers can critique movies.

    Yet that is inherently absurd. Movies are for audiences. Percentagewise, almost no one has made a serious movie.

    I prefer the old saying that "Everyone has a right to an informed opinion. Ignorant opinions are antisocial."

    (Someone will doubtless now explain that this is a form of totalitarianistic censorship and how dare I do that, etc, but at least now it's clear in advance that I think they're antisocial to say so. ;-)

    --
    Professional Wild-Eyed Visionary
    1. Re:Yes, but no. by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 2

      you're saying right out that audiences can't critique movies, only movie-makers can critique movies

      No, no, a thousand times no. I specifically said that arguing about individual films is completely fine with me. I do it all the time myself, and I'm not a professional critic. But people who look at Hollywood from outside-- with no knowledge of how or why things happen there-- and dismiss the whole thing with a hand-wave are just being idiots.

      Ignorant opinions are antisocial

      I don't know if I would have chosen the word "antisocial" or not, but I would definitely say that an uninformed opinion, vocally expressed, says far more about the holder of that opinion than that person probably realizes.

      --

      I write in my journal
    2. Re:Yes, but no. by Doug+Merritt · · Score: 2
      No, no, a thousand times no. I specifically said that arguing about individual films is completely fine with me. I do it all the time myself, and I'm not a professional critic. But people who look at Hollywood from outside-- with no knowledge of how or why things happen there-- and dismiss the whole thing with a hand-wave are just being idiots.

      Oh! So hexapodia are the key! Skroderiders! Right right right.

      Sorry, I guess I didn't read closely enough before. :-) (Note to onlookers: that's a reference to what Twirlip said in Vinge's Fire Upon the Deep.)

      Seriously, the philosophy of aesthetics is very very complicated even when one tries hard to be informed and discriminating, because then there's the problem of snobbish-ness, which can cause perfectly good but low-brow things to be considered low-quality when they are not, they're merely low-prestige to the high culture.

      Examples:

      • the better teen comedies shouldn't be dismissed just because they're aimed at a teen audience (despite the fact that the average ones are indeed pretty bad).
      • I rather like macaroni and cheese, hot dogs, etc; plain fare and recipes popular with the lower socio-economic strata certainly are not identical to high cuisine, but neither are they inherently low quality.
      • Every culture has a prestige dialect, such as Standard American English. Contrary to popular opinion, this doesn't mean that other dialects are "ungrammatical"; each dialect has its own precise grammar which is followed closely by the appropriate in-group, but outsiders have difficulty talking the talk. That doesn't mean that Ebonics should be considered the high culture prestige dialect; prestige can't be voted on, it's an outcome of complex factors.
      • I used to categorically dislike country music and hip hop, then I eventually discovered that both genres have some very high quality stuff. Again, they're not high culture prestige like classical music, but they can have their own kinds of Quality, either in the sense of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, or in the common sense.

      So it's a difficult path to follow, trying to recognize Quality wherever it appears without falling into the twin traps of Uninformed Opinions nor of Overly-informed snobbishness.

      But worth the effort.

      --
      Professional Wild-Eyed Visionary
    3. Re:Yes, but no. by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 2

      the better teen comedies shouldn't be dismissed just because they're aimed at a teen audience

      Ah, funny. That's the hardest one of all. I'm sure that after the first showing of The Acharnians, Aristophanes was heard muttering to himself backstage about how the highbrows in the audience wouldn't know funny if it bit them on the ass. In Greek, though, of course.

      I rather like macaroni and cheese

      Now, see, this is something I have an opinion about. Ever since my own personal dot-com bubble burst, I've been a chef. Do you know what separates high cuisine from low cuisine? Love. That's all. Just love. When you eat a meal at my restaurant, you know that somebody sweated over every aspect of your meal, from the hunter who shot the animal (or the fisherman, or the farmer, whatever) all the way down to me, who puts the last finishing touch on the plate before the waiter brings it to you. We do it out of love.

      Macaroni and cheese is on the menu at my restaurant. It's called "nouilles de coude avec des sept fromages," but it's mac and cheese. I use elbow noodles made from an unbelievably complicated blend of different kinds of wheat, butter from Normandy, cream from Wisconsin, and seven different types of cheeses, but it's just mac and cheese. The only difference between what I make and the stuff you get out of the box is love. And when I make the stuff out of the box at home, it's still better, because I love it, too; the tiniest pinch of fresh dill, a little ground ancho chile pepper, and a sprinkling of parmesan make all the difference.

      People who dismiss mac and cheese just because it's mac and cheese-- without taking into account what went into it, or how the result turned out-- are missing out on some wonderful things.

      God damn it. Now I'm all hungry.

      --

      I write in my journal
    4. Re:Yes, but no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're a dick

    5. Re:Yes, but no. by Doug+Merritt · · Score: 2
      That sounds really really yummy. Seven cheeses! Which?

      What's the brand on that elbow noodle?

      --
      Professional Wild-Eyed Visionary
    6. Re:Yes, but no. by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 2

      Seven cheeses! Which?

      Fontina, pecorino, a New Hampshire cheddar that I'm especially fond of, montasio, asiago, and two that I won't tell you about, but that you could probably guess. Neither of them is Velveeta, and neither of them comes wrapped in plastic that says "cheez" on it, but that's all I'm saying. ;-)

      What's the brand on that elbow noodle?

      You know, I have no idea. I get it in bulk from my importer, and I've never even looked at the sacks. But next time I'm in the restaurant-- Tuesday-- I'll check.

      --

      I write in my journal
    7. Re:Yes, but no. by Doug+Merritt · · Score: 2
      Cool, thanks!

      Two secret cheeses, eh? Hmm. Must be part of the professional chef thing. You already mentioned Parmigiano (Reggiano?) on out-of-the-box stuff, I don't see why not with the gourmet version, too.

      Hmm, let's see...almost all Italian... Mozzarella Di Bufala would be nicely exotic. Ricotta would take it in an interesting direction, but naw, too different than the other ones. Mozzarella Fresca is the safest guess.

      If it's not Italian, there are too many choices. I ran into a Dutch Mimolette in France that is my current favorite (because I haven't been able to find it here), so that'd be my second choice. Not that it would be a perfect match to the others.

      By far my favorite cheddar is New York cheddar, but I suppose that's irrelevent.

      (I had a feeling you'd have the response-notification-by-email turned on, and took a chance on replying days late...most people don't seem to have it turned on, and I only noticed its existence myself by accident maybe a month ago.)

      --
      Professional Wild-Eyed Visionary
    8. Re:Yes, but no. by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 2

      You already mentioned Parmigiano (Reggiano?) on out-of-the-box stuff, I don't see why not with the gourmet version, too.

      That's one. A little of this, mixed with panko-style breadcrumbs, over the top, and then two minutes under the salamander before service. Can you guess the other one? ;-)

      Mozzarella Fresca is the safest guess.

      No, that would be too sweet, too acidic. This dish needs a more complex flavor base. Also, think less stringy.

      I ran into a Dutch Mimolette in France that is my current favorite

      No, I've gotta say that you're way off there. Mimolette is too fruity for this dish.

      I'll give it to you. The secret ingredient is Stilton. Stinky, veiny Stilton. Make a blonde roux, add just a bit warm cream and some white stock, then crumble in the Stilton. I, personally, could eat this mixture with a spoon. That's what forms the base of my mac and cheese.

      I had a feeling you'd have the response-notification-by-email turned on

      Not by email, no, but I do have notification enabled.

      --

      I write in my journal
  127. Of course he's taken... by guacamolefoo · · Score: 2

    He's married to Kate Capshaw. Duh. Don't you people watch E! except for the Anna Nicole show?

    Sheesh.

  128. Piiiiiiigs In... by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 2

    ...naw, can't do it.

  129. Taken sucks by AskedRelic · · Score: 1

    It seems pretty stupid. Ive seen countless stories like it already, I don't wanna see it again just cause it has Speilberg directing or lots of special effects.
    Just my 2 cents.

  130. Scifi channel died a long, long time ago... by bani · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I mean really. "Field of dreams" is sci fi? "Cape Fear"? "The flintstones"? Give me a fucking break.

  131. Colonels and Horny Aliens by pmancini · · Score: 2

    Colonels are very powerful. Management of a project like this could easily fall under a colonel while Generals did the overseeing of the project. I am not surprised by this. There have been many historical projects run by colonels that seem to scale to this one in size (though nothing would scale to it in importance).

    On the point of horny aliens making lonely housewives pregnant, this too jives. The source material is American Mythology, not Science. It certainly fits in with the UFO mythology.

    Further they take the story and successfully kill Roswell's part in it! It needed to be done. Mogul needed to be put in it's proper place. I give them a huge thumbs up for that. The smoking gun on Roswell has always been what was recovered. Even Dee Proctor admits it could only fill two (2) wheel barrows. That couldn't possibly be enough material for the alleged UFO. By confirming that what hit Corona (the actual site of the crash is Corona but Roswell has and AFB so it got the name recognition) the writers have breathed fresh air into a story that would otherwise have had a very tough time allowing people like me to suspend disbelief.

  132. Close Encounters of the Worst Kind by mschuyler · · Score: 1

    Spielberg had nothing to do with Taken other than letting his name be used. If it wasn't, no one would watch this stuff. It has ten (yes, as in 10) directors. The first did "Dante's Peak." The second, Breck Eisner, is famous for two things: The Budweiser power surge commercial and being the spawn of Disney's Michael Eisner. To use the term "character" or "plot" are more fairly applied to Barney than this flick. But, hey! If you like Barney and your daily soaps, you're bound to go ga ga on this trash. Rock on, dudes.

    --
    How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
    1. Re:Close Encounters of the Worst Kind by geek · · Score: 2

      Kinda like how James Camerons name got used in Dark Angel when he only directed one episode in 2 seasons.

  133. The 2 boy scouts and their father by didiken · · Score: 1

    So what happened to the 2 boy scouts and their father who found the saucers ? I bet 'cleansed' mean killed ?

    1. Re:The 2 boy scouts and their father by effer · · Score: 1

      I wondered the same thing. After the end, I have a feeling they were "dealt with", if you know what I mean. A weak spot in the plotline, unless they return for some odd reason.

      Otherwise, I liked it and'll watch.

  134. The Reveiws Are In by ruzel · · Score: 1

    Seems like most people don't like the show. I, for one, am watching because X-files never finished. I like a good epic mythology and the grey alien theme is something cultural that people should play with. It's only in the guise of kidnappers that aliens are drawn or talked about this way -- that fact alone is an interesting one from a psychological/anthropological view.

    I think the writers have done an good job of tying together a lot of disparate ideas concerning aliens. There's a lot out there -- pilots taken by aliens, woman who have alien babies, the military, strange sky sightings. In fact, I thought the portrayal of the military's denial of the craft being a UFO was realisitic. There was no giant conspiracy, just some arrogant men. In fact, they were wrong in the beginning when they didn't think there was a craft. And what better way for an alien civilization to explore humanity than by becoming human? (It should be noted that this particular theme occurs frequently in ancient mythology: the Gods become like us.)

    I'll grant it's Spielburg -- I rolled my eyes every time the little girl's voiceover kicked in (again and again and again) -- but Taken's introduced new elements to an old story and is taking the story further than anyone had previously. It's not literature, it's entertainment. I probably won't catch every episode, but I'll watch it to the end to see what happens.
    _________________

  135. You must be joking by coinreturn · · Score: 1

    Intricate character development? Those were some of the most cardboard cutout plain vanilla boring characters I've ever seen - and so many of them! You must think NSync is a band of musical geniuses or that Burger King is gormet cooking, too.

  136. Re:Not worth watching - MOD BIGOT DOWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've no problem, it's the truth. We Americans demand instant gratification. By and large, we just have no patience.

  137. It's not Stealing, it's... by IBitOBear · · Score: 2

    ...a flagrant DMCA Copyright violation.

    You see, watching the comercial without buying the product is a DMCA violation as the chain-of-process protecting the advertisers intellectual property starts at the invention of marketing plan and ends at the city dump.

    By using your brain to abort the process of conception to advertisement to purchase to addictive use to discard-with-immediate-repurchase you are interupting the process which protects the intellectual property (e.g. the senior partner's Jaguar ownership) of the marketing firm. This is identical to interrupting the delivery-chain inside your DVD by DeCCSing the movie.

    So your brain, by recognizing the worthlessness of the comercial and the product constitutes a circumvention of a technology intended to provide the marketers with access to their Jaguars.

    The FBI will be by shortly to arrest you, confisiate your brain, drain your wallet into the hands of the marketing company, and repatriate you as an afgan so that you may then be held by the CIA as a forign terrorist.

    --
    Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
    --"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
  138. Rich Mr. Spielberg should pay for his advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think that Mr. Spielberg is rich and for that reason he gets to have his crap reviewed on slash-dot for free.

    That is not fair.

  139. The inset logo is better. by IBitOBear · · Score: 2

    The single thing I noticed about the inset logo (annoying little thing in the lower right hand of the screen) is that the new one is *MUCH* less visually intrusive.

    Yes, I noticed it, and yes, it is different.

    But by slimming down the letters, and turning the "base" ringed planet into the dual-silloette (spelling?) of just the ring and the planetary arc they reduced the "this covers crap up" factor by about 50%. It is still suggestive of the ringed planet, but now it is (were you to do a 3D analysis of the image 8-) just the user in near syzygy with the star (light source) roughly behind the planet, so two swooping arcs replace the planet. This moves the bulk of the planatary body OFF MY DAMN VIEWING AREA.

    Reducing the screen clutter is always better. 8-)

    --
    Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
    --"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
  140. Here, lemme help with those sums by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The whole series is a total of 10 - 2 hour events.

    Damn you and your tricky maths! The whole series is a total of 8 hour events.

    As far as the first airing, it appears as though each family will receive 3 - 2 hours episodes, then a 2 hour finalie where everyone is brought together.

    As far as the first airing, it appears as though each family will receive 1 hour episodes, then a 2 hour finale where everyone is brought together.

  141. YAWN by samantha · · Score: 2

    I really did not like this show at all. For all the hype it had nothing particularly interesting to offer. There was certainly nothing for hard science fiction folks. It was mainly a very human drama type flick with a few "aliens", a bit of hardware and the common assumptions and assertions thrown in. Afterwards I wished I at finished configuring the new house network instead.

    Generally I am considerably underwhelmed by the so-called "SciFi" channel. They will put any piece of B (or worse) trash on, give a lot of time to "Crossing Over" and other psychic hokum and pad with way too many and too many of the same low-grade commercials (this show was an exception on the commercials). If you want to see just how braindead our culture is, watch the SciFi channel.

  142. mountain gorillas by taxman_10m · · Score: 2

    What about mountain gorillas? We skulk around for those and are very careful not to interfere. Well, not interfere except when we drug one and cart it back someplace to be studied. Anyone know if we reintroduce them into the population after study? If mountain gorillas could talk eh? "These tall slender beings with barely any hair at all abducted me, probed me, stuck me with needles." Yeh, no way some alien civilization would treat us like we treat mountain gorillas right?

  143. The birth of the Sci-Fi Money Maker by hellfire · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "In conclusion, SCIFI is trading Farscape for John Edwards and in the process losing its soul. Instead of watching a particular show, I would watch "SCIFI" - I don't do that anymore, I pick and choose from a rapidly shrinking pool of shows I want to see. And the shows that do remain could be as easily shown on many other, less distinct, channels. I'm sure "The Dream Team" would do just as well on VH1. So sad to see you go SCIFI, it was fun while it lasted."

    Of course it is, this is the nature of all cabel channels. They do really well in the beginning but then they just skew to their audience to get better ratings and settle into a funk of turning out crap.

    Every year a cable channel is remaking itself into one thing, something that can make money. Several years ago it was The Learning Channel which no longer teaches anyone anything but is mostly melodrama about emergency rooms, police chases, and weird medical sob stories. Recently they got back to their roots by actually putting something on during prime time that educates about science or history, but I have the history channel now so pffffffft (God how I long for Connections:2).

    Last year it was "The new TNN!" and their revamp around Star Trek:TNG, Baywatch, and Wrestling, from a country and western style station (If you weren't enough of a redneck to know before, it used to be the Nashville Network, now its The National Network).

    This year its the Sci-Fi channel, and I'm surprised it didn't come before. What most /.ers consider real Sci Fi doesn't sell to the masses unless its action-packed. Actioned-Packed Sci fi is expensive... too expensive for TV.

    John Edwards is cheap, and he pulls in ratings.

    I don't see this as a death, just the natural order of that evil thing called cable.

    If I want sci-fi, I'll tape Adult swim on Saturday night on Cartoon Network (mmmmmmmmm Cowboy Bebop *incessant drooling*)

    --

    "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

  144. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  145. Slime worms? by BasharTeg · · Score: 2

    Debian makes slime worms?!

    So now they have two products, Linux and slime worms. Interesting.

    1. Re:Slime worms? by totallygeek · · Score: 2
      .

      Debian makes slime worms?! So now they have two products, Linux and slime worms. Interesting.

      Most computer users find the slimeworms more user friendly. Microsoft has distributed slimeworm product for years. They just don't call it that.

  146. Wish it would have been closer to "truths" by socokidz · · Score: 1


    It would have been MUCH better to start off each episode with "based on real testimony".

    Instead, they show a Roswell craft that is 10 times the size every witnesses said it was (in fact, most said it wasn't a disc at all, but more of a wing shape), the balls of light (foo fighters) looked like kids toys, the Grays all of a sudden can climb walls like a spider, shape shifting aliens, etc...

    *sigh*

    All I'm saying is that this could have been a phenom if more "facts" had been used. Instead about 2% is fact and 98% is fiction. A documentary with Spielbergs storytelling behind it would have made a MUCH better series. If you have seen "Roswell", the Showtime movie, then you know what I'm talking about.

    Shame I tells ya.

  147. I replay and I watch commericals by Beebos · · Score: 1

    I watch a lot of t.v. via my replay. While I must admit that I skip some of the commercials, I don't skip about half of them. Why? Beccause frequently when I'm "watching" t.v., I am also doing other stuff; e.g. cleaning the house, paying bills, doing laundry etc.. I don't always drop what I'm doing to skip through commercials.

    I wonder if the corporate pigs of the world think that not giving commercials my undivided attention while I do dishes is stealing t.v..

    What do you bet the t.v. corporations force t.v. makers to build t.v.s that strap you in directly in front of the tube, pry your eyelids open, and tie your hands down so you must watch the commercials?

  148. The rating system ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are about 5000 nielsen families which determine ratings for all shows. They are considered a good sampling of all audience but unfortunatly the system is pretty inaccurate. This is why good shows can get cancled. I suggest you people read up about the rating system.

  149. It was OK but those first 5 minutes were the best. by sparkeyjames · · Score: 1


    What can you say about the opening 5 minutes of taken but simply awesome. Flying through space only to be dropped into a world war II bombimg sortie with the germans all over you. That was great stuff. (sorry for the redundancy). Unfortunatly the rest was rather lame. So far we have a colonel who is trying to keep things secret. A scheming captain who will kill to get his way. One woman knocked up by an alien. Shapeshifting and/or mindbender aliens who can climb walls like an insect. All rounded off by a world war 2 vet (see the first 5 minutes again) who can't sleep and needs a tin foil hat. One thing for sure though is that it will be interesting to see how they bring all of these parallel tracks together.

    Sparkeyjames

    If sense were common everyone would have it!

  150. I dont know about the rest of you.... by sbillard · · Score: 0

    But that SciFi channel station-identification-commerical-bookend kid with the wings and bug-eyes and suction-cup finger tips really freaked me out. The greys in Taken had little-to-no-impact, but that freakish kid in the commercial kept me up last night. Ugggh!

  151. While they don't tramp about ... by burgburgburg · · Score: 2
    the people who study mountain gorillas are there in the open. They avoid staring at the gorillas in the eye (as that is provocative), they keep quiet so as to not interrupt the flow of their interactions, but they aren't hidden (They couldn't be. Gorillas travel all day for food and the researchers travel with them). They don't dress up as gorillas.

    I would doubt that the researchers in the wild drug and drag the gorillas (it would provoke the whole troop).

  152. SPOILER WARNING - if you haven't seen ep1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps it's a sign that you're a geek when the most blatant "fantastic" event passed you by:

    An alien life form comprised of totally different (duh: alien) biology managed to knock up a waitress at Denny's.

    Not only are these aliens in possession of powerful magic, but they're quite potent beasties as well.

    But fuck, if I were an all powerful alien like this, with the ability to assume whatever form I wanted, I'd turn into and bang a young GORGEOUS chick, not some matronly mother of 2 from the greasy spoon.

  153. Re:Make Spielberg Open Source! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please, stay on topic. The parent said nothing about anyone of us talking to the MPAA.

    The Open Source Developer Community

  154. Not sums, hyphen abductions! by Phong · · Score: 2, Funny
    I think you have witnessed an actual hyphen abduction in progress! I had been wondering why so many hyphens were missing from people's text these days. Now, all is clear -- they have been taken away by an alien race for nefarious purposes!

    Witness the original sentence, as we imagine it must have looked at the start of the event:

    The whole series is a total of 10, 2-hour events.

    Note that the hyphen is in its correct place. Now, the snapshot you took shows the aliens starting to pull the hyphen to the left, which manages to obscure the comma:

    The whole series is a total of 10 - 2 hour events.

    If you had dropped by /. just moments later, the hyphen would have undoubtedly been completely gone.

    Good work! You've solved another mystery that has been baffling mankind for decades!

    --
    ..wayne..
  155. IT IS "DARK SKIES" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a complete rip off.
    http://us.imdb.com/Title?0115151

    It took me a while to pin it down, but... BAM!

  156. the engine turns over! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Never mind the telepathy, I turned it off after the scene in which the "Sue" is driving around in a snit after being stood up by the villain; three "bright lights" overtake her car from behind; her car stops, her radio goes dead, her headlights go off; she tries to re-start the car and somehow -- the engine turns over! Still no radio, still no headlights, but somehow her starter has electricity.

    That was a pretty good indicator of how dumb the rest of the show would be.

  157. Spielberg's taken? by g0at · · Score: 1

    ...dangit, I wanted to marry the bastard. Oh well, a girl can dream.

  158. butt... by sacrilicious · · Score: 2

    ... did you remember to lock your toilet shut so you won't be tempted to visit it while watching television?

    --
    - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
  159. Arghh - Got that right! by quanta · · Score: 1

    Make 'em walk the plank!

    when will the TV media change? So sick of it all, but I'm still watching...

  160. Spielberg is way overrated. His movies are for by zymano · · Score: 0

    children. E.T. ,gremlins. Hook. Long list of bad movies. Why do people kiss his ass. Schindlers list is a sentimentel win for oscar, nothing great about the acting.

  161. Annoying voiceover by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did anyone else find the voiceovers done by the little girl really annoying? They seemed, oh what was that word? Oh, yes. Stupid.

  162. CRAP! Forgot! Thank you /.! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'Switches channel from CNBC to SciFi'
    Need an X-File substitute fix...must stop evening consultant gigs this week.....

  163. John Loengard an Alien!???? by katchins · · Score: 1

    Eric Close, from Dark Skies fame, is now an alien in Taken!!! Figures that he would have gotten *Taken* by the Grays/Hive/etc...

    --
    if (!sig) { printf("Signature Unavailable\n"); }
  164. Hey..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has anyone noticed that almost every movie Speilberg does has Nazi's in it? hmmmmm.....

  165. who's next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    great. spielberg's talken, einstein's unveiled, ogg vorbis is unpeeled... i suppose fermat bare-assed is next.

    -a.c.

  166. Re:a more important question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Offtopic, but important nontheless.

  167. Spielbergo by boy_afraid · · Score: 1

    Looks like Mr. Burns' director, Spielbergo, did this movie with an alien that happens to have human compatible sperm to impregnate a terran women.

    Oh, also, if they were soooo smart why did they crash, twice?!

  168. Re:Make Spielberg Open Source! by number6x · · Score: 1

    The parent of my comment said this:
    "Only when we inform the MPAA of the contributions made by the Open Source developer community can we disbang region-encoded DVDs."

    I was merely following up on something said in the parent. I apologize if this was off topic.

  169. Re:Spielberg is way overrated. His movies are for by MekkaMenelaus · · Score: 0

    i agree... dont forget AI, the much overhyped debocle.

  170. Re:Spielberg is way overrated. His movies are for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    saving private ryan... lots of gore and such

  171. Man Taken.... by geekindustries · · Score: 1

    [rant] I feel more taken by Sci-fi! Look at all the air dates for steven's little film! How many airdates did the new robocop series get? I'll tell you how many...once! When oh when will it ever be on again? Probably never...(insert mutting here) [/rant]

    --
    Hard work usually pays off over time, but procrastination pays off now.
  172. seinfeld rules by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    seinfeld rules

  173. Speelburg Taken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one who hass had a hard time hearing the dialogue in this series? The background music is so loud,, and the sound effects such as helicopter blades whipping and echoes in caves are so loud you can barely hear the actor's voices. I finally had to turn on the closed captions to know what was happening. This has to be the worst sound editing I have ever seen on a movie!

  174. I've been *TAKEN* too! by katchins · · Score: 1

    Each night on TAKEN, I sat on my couch...
    Starting at 8pm....
    The next thing I know, it's 2am
    Lost track of 6 hours....

    I must have been TAKEN too!

    Must have been the startling special effects,
    or the fantastic acting,
    or the, uh, well, it was good.

    --
    if (!sig) { printf("Signature Unavailable\n"); }
  175. Last Post! by alpg · · Score: 1

    What you end up with, after running an operating system concept through
    these many marketing coffee filters, is something not unlike plain hot
    water.
    -- Matt Welsh

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...