Slashdot Mirror
Sci Fi Confirms Forthcoming Farscape Miniseries
Albinus writes "The Sci Fi Channel has decided to continue the Farscape series in the form of a miniseries, according to a short article on SciFi.com. Apparently, 'The four-hour miniseries picks up where the cliffhanger series finale left off and will reunite John Crichton (Ben Browder), Aeryn Sun (Claudia Black) and the rest of the Moya crew.' Hopefully this will generate a renewed interest in the show and bring it back permanently." We reported on earlier rumors to this effect late last year.
Looks like there's a trend starting to develop here.
And I think it's for the better too... Sci-Fi Mini Series.
The Dune ones, the new Battlestar Galactica, for example, and now this Farscape one.
I think it's a good way to keep stories fresh and entertaining, with a tight plot, compared to some season-long space operas that drag on way past their expiry date...
I'm all in favor of this format.
If the series is actually picked back up, it could prove inspirations for all the other shows that were cancelled, but are still fighting to get back on the air. the save farscape crew did a good job of trying to rally support.
but I thought it said ministries. finally would've been a religion I could relate to.
Nice pipe dream, but since the series wasn't cancelled due to lack of interest, I doubt it'll happen.
Even Jesus hates listening to Creed.
Do shows ever really recover from cancellation? Sure, there's some convulsions before rigamortis sets in, but rarely is there a rebirth, if ever.
Now, if it WERE to happen, I'd be immensely happy. I'm a big fan of Farscape. The humor is priceless ("Bill Gates can't guarantee Windows, what makes you think you can guarantee my safety?").
I look forward to the miniseries eagerly and I must admit I wonder how they'll write themselves out of the series finale where Crighton and Sun were literally vaporized.
(grabs popcorn)
At risk of getting modded down as off topic here or as a troll (he says with a straight face), let me suggest that all you Farscape fans out there get behind Firefly!!! Farscape is about a hunk surrounded by hot babes and puppets flying around in the gut of some kind of space-creepy. Firefly is about a real group of people with guns, no aliens, bonding for that warm family feeling in a hunk-of-junk honest-to-god spaceship that let's you go aaahhh... at the end of the ep. Much more satisfying.
Can anyone explain what makes them like the show? I've caught bits before but I couldn't see much in the characters or visuals that was particularly good or new. This is not meant to be a flame - loads of people seem to like it but I can't see why.
I need something like a Nearscape, as my eyesight is not what it was when I was still a young man, gadding about in my salad days.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
This is the first "right" thing Sci-Fi has done since cancelling Farscape. Every other series they've brought on like Mad Mad House or whatever it is, is crud. Hopefully this is a sign that Sci-Fi is learning from it's past mistakes, but I doubt it.
It won't be so hard to move on - the alien just says he will prepare them for 'naturalization' which I assume means breaking them down into little balls of their most basic atomic components. Oh - and how exactly they are writing a 22 episode season's worth of story in 4 hours (when each episode is 1 hour anyway) is beyond me. I adore every episode of Farscape - I'd hate to see it watered down.
Also, I had a feeling that Chrichton and Aeryn weren't dead at the series finale. Any theories though on how they're coming back?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but they completely destroyed all the sets etc. when they cancelled the series - so are they now going to rebuild it all to make this miniseries? Now there's a lack of forward planning if ever I heard one.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
The show wasn't cancelled for poor ratings (it was one of thier highest rated shows), Sci-fi just decided that with it's very high production costs about to increase, it would be best to turn to some cheaper programming.
If you can get ratings with cheap crap like Scare Tactics (come on, I could produce that show for 5 bucks an episode), then why shell out 3 million an episode for some quality programming?
I imagine this miniseries would have to get some pretty spectacular ratings to sway Sci-Fi on this.
Yes! I could only stand a few sci-fi series for a few episodes, until I got the feel of the shallow writing, (dripping with moral lessons) or lame conflict ("It would be my honor to run away screaming like a little girl from that ravenous bugblatter beast for you, Captain") That some series dragged on for years longer than they should have only, IMHO, harmed sci-fi series.
A quick story, with no commitment to continuity, would work for me, and I'd possibly get back to watching more of it. (I've felt simlarly about sitcoms, but you know how networks think, they want a season, something they can count on, drag it out for years, etc.)
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Hopefully this will generate a renewed interest in the show and bring it back permanently.
Television shows are less reliable than jobs. Producers, as a matter of routine, turn their backs on audiences numbering in the millions in exchange for a short-term ratings benefit or schedule change, then sit around and gripe because creative people refuse to work on television shows.
The tremendous amounts of money invested in building a market are usually wasted by some brilliant middle manager who has absolutely no idea why people like the show that is being cancelled.
This is twice as likely when it is science fiction.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
There is a rule that says that the longer a series goes on, no matter how good it is, it will never gain viewers, only lose. This rule applies to shows that have a complex evolving world, like Farscape. It is because viewers cannot comprehend the series unless they have been watching from the beginning. I watched the first season of Farscape, but after trying to rejoin it after a season or two, I was completely lost. Compare that with the Star Trek series', where you could pick-up from any season and get acquanted quite quickly. The ST world was much "simpler" and didn't evolve as much (it was more like a sitcom in this aspect). The Farscape world is just far too alien (IMHO, this is what made the series awesome).
This is the downside to the fictional-story-drama genre. Babylon 5 was similar.
Thus, the prognosis for Farscape is that it is over. You cannot regain the viewers you lost unless you somehow backtrack to a point where they can rejoin. I bet this show will do GREAT in syndication, when people can easily rewatch old episodes and catch-up.
...bring it back permanently.
Nothing is permanent in TV, except, perhaps, the commercials.
SCIFI treated Henson pretty shabbily when they were producing the original series, and backed out of the series for the 5th season when Henson wouldn't take less money for the same number of episodes delivered (as well as SCIFI insisting that they should get virtually unlimited re-run rights, which would tie up the series syndication in the USA for a long time. You know SCIFI: they'd run it in repeats until it was dead if they could do it for free.)
The fact that Henson would back up in the arms of SCIFI for the American distribution is really odd, as it was SCIFI that made such a mess of it in the first place. But I think someone needs to read the fine print: SCIFI's exclusive license to run repeats ends this fall (they had a 2 year contract.)
I'd be willing to bet my leather Scorpy suit that Henson hooked a deal for distribution in return for an extension of SCIFI's lock on the American distribution. And it means that fans are stuck with SCSFI's crappy attitude toward hard science-fiction and their decision that "Sci-Fi" means Horror-Fantasy.
So expect SCSIFI to make a big hoorah that "We're bringing this signature show back because we care about and listen to our fans." Phooey. I cancelled my extended cable because after Farscape and Firefly went off-air, there wasn't any decent Sci-Fi left to watch on SCIFI. Tremors2? Fear Factor?
I'll camp out at a friend's place for the mini-series, but I'm not going to sign up with SCIFI again until they demonstrate that they are proactive, rather than reactive.
RMW
flames > dev/null
It's hard to know what to think about the channel. It embodies (sometimes) much of what you would like to watch if you are a science fiction/horror/fantasy fan. Yet they have made so many inexplicable moves. For example they cancel a novel award winning show in its prime. In exchange we get Tremors the Series (crap)and a lot of made for TV movies (crap).
Yet inexeplicably they revive Andromeda over Farscape? They pass on Firefly?
It really seems as if their executives are either not as in touch with the genre as they should be, or are being overruled from above. Or quite simply are just fools.
They have had so many cool shows, that they could populate their line up with them, yet often they take and mangle a shows original spirit. Sliders being a prime example. Farscape another where rather then mangle the concept they just killed it.
Sadly the alternative networks for this kind of content aren't doing much with it. Showtime being the best example as the former owners of Stargate, and current owners of Jeremiah.
Ah where do we find good quality shows these days?
Actually, I considered this to be one of the best SCI-FI attempts I have ever seen. Too bad it started getting weak plotlines in the last two seasons.
The general outline was "Obtain a central enemy. Over a period of time, have the enemy become an ally while obtaining a new enemy."
My overall preference for the show was that the majority of the characters had depth to them versus most of the sci-fi chaff thrown at us.
For instance, I think Scorpius is on the best fleshed out enemies I have ever seen. He is a very well done chaotic-good representation, in my opinion. In fact, they did a show letting the audience know his ultimate motivations, and why he is the way he is. The good part of this show was that none of the other characters in the show ever saw this.
That's because viewers are now wise to the networks' ways. Why get attached to a new series that will be canned before your car needs an oil change? Even frig'n elections campains last longer than new shows! The only garanteed hits are campy shows like "The O.C." until the viewers get bored with characters and non-existing plot lines.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
Technically, there's a distinction between science fiction and space opera, at least according to some writers in the Sci Fi genre. I once read an article written by one of Analog's regular contributors, who attempted to draw this distinction.
To the category of true science fiction belong works such as Mary Shelly's Frankenstein (the book, not the movie); to the category of space opera belong works such as Star Wars. The idea is that true sci fi has at least one science element, even if it's badly conceived science, that is integral to the plot; without it, the story doesn't work. In Frankenstein, you have the concept of reanimating dead tissue with electricity, and creating life from non-life. Space opera and its close relatives, on the other hand, could be re-cast in another genre with little or no difficulty (e.g., a western). The technology is just a replaceable prop.
Despite Gene Roddenberry selling the original Star Trek to NBC as a "wagon train to the stars," he hired real sci fi writers and told some pretty amazing stories that were genuine science fiction. Quite honestly, I saw nothing in Firefly that would classify it as genuine science fiction -- but if it's space opera, it's very competently written, proving that the term doesn't have to be a negative epithet.
Farscape was a bit uneven at times, but it did explore genuine science fictional themes at least some of the time. The rest of the time was spent on character development and dealing with plot arcs. It's pretty safe to say, though, that the story told by Farscape would fall completely apart without the underlying science concepts (wormhole travel, cerebral implants, etc.)
The miniseries is a good idea. There are some things that need to be resolved. Would I have preferred the final season in it's completeness? Sure.
... I was skeptical at first but looking at past episodes they did set it up pretty nicely). Babylon 5 -definitely- got it ... the fact that they had a time limit and planned plot is what let that show flourish.
As for bringing back the show "permanently" (as in with no end in sight purely for the sake of watching FarScape), I say no.
If I hadn't known that there was supposed to be another season and that a number of sideplots were unresolved, I actually -liked- the "cliffhanger" if it would have ended exactly where they got blasted. It is extremely rare that a show has the guts to have a tragic ending.
A series doesn't need to go on for a decade or more to be good. In fact, going on and on often ends up wasting the creativity that kept the show good at first and leads to jumping the shark. They planned one more season to tie things up but from what I understood the writers felt that the arc was almost finished.
Sopranos' creators understand this (so far at least, HBO might convince them to keep going but I don't think they should) and is ending soon. M*A*S*H* learned this though it was almost too late. Seinfeld "got it". I think SG-1 "got it", or at least RD Anderson did (Atlantis? We'll see
Sometimes an ending is a good thing. I for one still miss the creativity of FarScape (like the cartoon dream episode) and the actors, and I wish all the best for the Henson company, but I definitely don't want to see FarScape around for years past a logical conclusion and falling into the trap where every other episode is a hallucination, parody or flashback and it was starting to show those characteristics too often already (one of each category per season for a tension breaker is valid but not too much).
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
I could go into detail about how the conversation between the unknown pilot and his superiors, and the behavior of the "weapon" itself, gave strong hints to the "weapon" being a teleportation device that scans the pattern of the target without the mess of actually moving matter around (and naturally destroying the originals, they already had enough doppleganger episodes), or I could just point to the big "To Be Continued..." sign.
"The Sci Fi Channel has decided to continue the Farscape series in the form of a miniseries,
Uh, no. Henson and Hallmark decided to continue the series and got funding to produce the miniseries. That all happened last November, or at least that's when word began to leak out and was later confirmed (unofficially but with plenty of nods and winks) at the Farscape convention in Burbank. What's new is that Sci Fi will be the broadcaster for the mini, which is already in post production. The quoted line makes it sound like Sci Fi reconsidered its decision to cancel the series, which gives them way more credit than the facts warrant.
Oh, it's science fiction. Who was it that said "really advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic"? It is, however, SOFT scifi, as opposed to HARD scifi.
Hard scifi is what you said, extrapolating technology into the future. Technologies in hard scifi are usually based on real science or science theories. Really good hard scifi is often used to point out problems with upcoming technology or as satire to poke at flaws in our current society. The short story/movie "Farenheit 451" comes to mind.
Soft scifi is more fantastical (but not completely fantasy). The technology is less similar to our familiar technology and is often not based on real science. It's hard to keep believability in a story when it's pushed very far into the future or very far away in space without making it soft scifi. When you have huge distances in space or time it's less likely that the technology will have evolved into something we'd expect, thus writers have to resort to making up things instead of using real science. Farscape, being far in space, is soft scifi. So is Star Wars, being far in time AND space.
They both have their advantages and disadvantages and often apply to different fans. I enjoy both, but I think I favor soft scifi more because I like to escape from reality when I watch TV or read a book, and soft scifi is much farther from reality than hard scifi. And sometimes you will have soft scifi elements poking their way into hard scifi shows. Technomages in Bab5 are an example. Even the 'mages themselves admitted what they were doing was magic (or rather, highly advanced technology designed to emulate magic). You do not immediately categorize them as a fantasy element, however, because there is technology behind their magic. It's highly unrealistic technology, but it's tech nonetheless. It's soft scifi.
Yes, there is a fine line between soft scifi and fantasy, but there are things that are obviously fantasy and things that are obviously scifi. Harry Potter is fantasy. The Wheel of Time is fantasy, and so is the Lord of the Rings. Star Trek is scifi. Bab5 is scifi. In the middle would be, say, the Pern novels. Sure, there's scifi elements (the dragons were genetically engineered from the smaller native firelizards) but to the average reader who doesn't know the history, it reads like fantasy. Farscape may be closer to fantasy than Star Trek, but it's by no means fantasy. It's just soft.
Okay, I'm going a bit astray here, and while yes, the Asgard have been used as a deus ex machina on occasion, there have been other times when the Asgard have said, "Tough Luck, you're on your own" (Red Sky) or "We're sorry, but we can't take your call right now. Please leave your gate address and we'll get back to you" (Redemption); and other times, they simply figured them out on their own (Singularity).
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
Interesting.
The SciFi channel
- canceled Farscape despite high ratings
- canceled The Invisible Man despite high ratings
- got rid of just about every original sci-fi show
they did
- stopped rerunning very old, interesting sci-fi
reruns they could have rerun
- did not rerun many sci-fi movies when I had
cable
- reran a bunch of stuff that had nothing to do
with science fiction
In short the sci-fi channel stopped being the sci-fi channel and stopped caring what their viewers wanted.
I wonder if the bill to let cable users pay by channel has inspired the Sci-Fi channel to consider what their viewers ( now *their* __customers ) want.
Radical concept
Steve