Slashdot Mirror


Warren Ellis's Global Frequency May Not Air

ajs writes "According to Ain't It Cool News, the WB network has cancelled Warren Ellis's Global Frequency, a wonderfully twisted modern-day SF TV series which may yet air, but the company that owns the series will now have to shop it around to other networks. If you're a fan of the comic series or you have just been starving for good non-space SF since the X-Files went away, you might want to send words of support to your favorite non-WB network. Slashdot has previously interviewed Ellis."

90 comments

  1. Nice. by Adouma · · Score: 0, Redundant

    if you're interested, check out Bad Signal. The upshot was that in his column, he had said something along the lines that one of the critical things that changed after he stopped writing "The Authority" was that Apollo and Midnighter were "outed" as it were as a gay couple. That then lead to a number of plot indulgences where opponents had to "react" to their homosexuality and various "issues" of hate crime had to be addressed.

    Early in the series when Ellis was writing it, such topics as rape camps, drug abuse, and all manner of other "difficult topics" were covered, so doing stories that involved hate crimes was tame by the series' standards. However, to DWELL on any of these topics was certainly not The Authority's style, and it slowed the book down and turned it into something that was far from its core story.

    That said, I felt that the book took a nose-dive after Ellis left. It went from being the story of what happens when the super heros are several orders of magnitude more powerful than the rest of the planet to being the tale of thier humanity and flaws. Nice idea, wrong take on that book, IMHO. These heros were much more than just human. The story was interesting because the issues that they dealt with were on a whole other scope.

    To give you an example, let me SPOIL a bit of the early story. Our heros get embroiled into a combat with an alternate earth where the world is ruled by a half-breed alien whose corrupt family has litterally been raping the planet for resources, breeding stock and slave labor since they were marooned here several hundred years ago.

    In the end, our heros are suck with a decision: they've beaten them back and killed the leader, but if they leave now, the planet will still be enslaved and the half-breeds will still be in power. They struggle for a beat and then one of them holds the Italian peninsula still for a second. That doesn't seem like a big deal until you think about how fast the planet is spinning and how fast it's orbiting the sun.... From our vantage in space, the only change is that Italy gets a little thinner... on the surface, of course, no one could have lived through the devistation.

    In most books you could not walk away from such wholesale carnage thinking of these people as heroes, but that was the point to The Authority. They weren't above the law, they simply represented a very different law... one that acted on a the scale of nations and of worlds and realities. When dealing with individual people, The Authority simply treated them as representitives of larger systems.

    This made The Authority interesting (though not always morally defensible), and IMHO, that was lost when Ellis went away because the people who took it over didn't understand that that's what made it different from Stormwatch or The JLA or any number of other super-team books.

    The "fetish gear" didn't really do anything for me ;-)

    1. Re:Nice. by TomHandy · · Score: 1

      For what it's worth, the new Authority: The Revolution 12-issue series (the first issue just came out) is written by Ed Brubaker, which should at least mean we can hope for something better, as he seems to definitely appreciate the spirit of the title, and Brubaker has already done some brilliant work on Sleeper.

    2. Re:Nice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although i've read good reviews of his work, only yesterday did i read some random Planetary comic that i accidentally found on emule.
      I and was surprised by the creativity of the story itself.

      I'm surprised that the parent didn't mention this work. Maybe i should look into the others

      This being slashdot i'll post a link to the torrent for everyone to have a try, Planetary 0-20 plus extras
      If you are not familiar with *.cdr or *.cbz, they are just renamed .rar and .zip files that contain images.
      If you are running windows download CDisplay.
      If you are running Mac OS just download FFview.
      If your running *nix download Comical.

      And remember: if you really like it, you will enjoy it even more, reading in the bathroom :-)
      Just buy it.

    3. Re:Nice. by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      Actually, I thought Millar did a fairly good job when he took over the series after Ellis, their styles (at least on the Authority) were pretty similar IMO. After that though, it just become another superhero book and I no longer buy it.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    4. Re:Nice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a half-breed alien whose corrupt family has litterally been raping the planet

      Those must have been some incredibly big aliens. I'm not sure how literally raping the planet would get you anything useful though. (Or was that how the half-breed came about?)

  2. hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    How do you know it's a good show if it's never aired? if the WB isn't gonna show it, it probably sucks... don't get your hopes up.

    1. Re:hmmm... by B'Trey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, anybody that refers to the X-Files as good non-space SF obviously has no clue anyway.

      If you're an X-Files fan, wonderful. Love it to you heart's content. But, space aliens not withstanding, X-Files was not SF, good, bad or indifferent. It was fantasy.

      --

      "The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.

    2. Re:hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course it's SF, it changes one aspect of reallity (the conspiracy theorists are right after all!!11!) and goes from there.

    3. Re:hmmm... by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      I'm more a fan of "hard core" SF like Star Trek myself,
      but X-files can be classified as SF I think.
      It takes the scientific possibility that aliens could exist,
      and explores some of the effects that could have. That's what SF is, extrapolation of known scientific facts, to see what effect they could have.
      I did not watch the X-files often enough to elaborate further.

      It most definately also falls into some other classifications as well,
      but fantasy is more Charmed, Buffy, mutantX, Angel, not X-files AFAIK.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
    4. Re:hmmm... by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 1

      That's just want they want you to think!

      The X-Files was a documentary.

    5. Re:hmmm... by jmays · · Score: 1

      Dictionary.com states:
      A literary or cinematic genre in which fantasy, typically based on speculative scientific discoveries or developments, environmental changes, space travel, or life on other planets, forms part of the plot or background.

      I would say that the X-Files qualify as SF.

      --
      KARMA TAG! You're it.
    6. Re:hmmm... by ajs · · Score: 1

      I went into the X-Files as SF earlier, but let me tackle it this way.

      What if I told you that an episode of the X-Files was about monks who were bringing about the end of the world by calculating the permutations of the name of God on a computer. Sounds like a fairly plausible episode to me, and would not stick out from other X-Files episodes.... It also happens to be the plot of The Nine Billion Names of God, which won the World Science Fiction Convention's Retrospective Hugo for 1953.

      Science fiction is about the nature of science and discovery and our relationship to them, not just the technology and aparatus of science. When we question what the nature of belief and skeptecism are in fiction, we are very much engaging in science fiction just as the great short story authors of the 30s-60s did and just as Twilight Zone did.

      The presence of space ships and ray guns is not reasonable benchmark for the genre.

    7. Re:hmmm... by B'Trey · · Score: 1

      The distinctin between SF and fantasy has nothing to do with ray guns or space ships. There are lots of nuances and the question not only can be but acutally has been debated in volumes. There's no way that it can be given even reasonably fair or comprehensive treatment in a format like this.

      That being said, one of the distinctions is that SF makes a good faith effort to comply with the known laws of physics (at the time of writing), to postulate new laws or modifications of the existing laws of physics which are inherently consistent or to establish a universe with an alternate but internally consistent set of laws of physics. Put another way, SF should be possible. Fantasy is generally impossible.

      Many of the golden age SF classics would not be considered SF if published today. They're generally grandfathered in to the genre.

      --

      "The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.

    8. Re:hmmm... by ajs · · Score: 1

      I don't buy your definition. I've heard many an author try to define his own genre, and with absolutely no exception they've all been fairly obvious attempts to retrofit the genre to fit their work.

      The definition of science fiction is, quite simply, that which a majority of the public calls science fiction.

      Yes, this means the definition changes over time. It also means that your definition and mine might not agree and we can both be right or both wrong.

      Personally, I'm in the camp of intent. If you intend to write science fiction, then that's what you're writing. This means that no matter how science fiction-like the magical realism stuff may look, it's not because that's not what the author is writing.

      Why do I hold to this definition? Because it's the only one that removes the reader's bias for what is and is not valid science and is immutable over time. It also favors the current trend of authors who are good enough to have a shot at being noticed in the literary world, bailing from the SF ghetto while continuing to write speculative works (e.g. magical realism).

      If you prefer a different definition, have at it, but mine works for me.

    9. Re:hmmm... by ajs · · Score: 1

      sorry, I goofed. I meant to make it clear that those two definitions are mutually exclusive, and instead I made it sound like I was stating them both as THE definition. Sorry.

    10. Re:hmmm... by B'Trey · · Score: 1

      You make two different claims. First, you say SF is whatever the "majority of the public" says it is, and that the defintion is fluid over time. Second, you say it's whatever the author says it is and that it's immutable over time. Those two are incompatible.

      In general, a word or phrase which means whatever you say it means is effectively meaningless. If you describe a story (whether written or film, of whatever length) as SF, that should tell me something about the work. If there aren't at least some aspects or characteristics that are widely agreed on, then the phrase tells me nothing. If the only characteristic that a work of SF has is that the author says it's SF, then the phrase is useless because it communicates no information.

      Of course, that doesn't prevent you from using the word any way you like. To quote Lewis Carol, "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less.

      But neither does it mean that there isn't a widely accepted meaning of the genre. Writers, editors and others who make their living working within the genre have invested a great deal of time and effort into defining it. They don't always agree on the details, but the aspects I pointed out aren't considered controversial. They're pretty widely accepted.

      --

      "The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.

    11. Re:hmmm... by ajs · · Score: 1

      you missed my followup, where I make exactly this point. It was a typo.

  3. Ensign Ro? by October_30th · · Score: 4, Funny
    still fondly remembered as Ensign Ro

    Uh... no.

    --
    The owls are not what they seem
    1. Re:Ensign Ro? by saden1 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      The big question is does it understand "I surrender" in with an Iraqi accent or do I have to say it in proper southern accent?

      --

      -----
      One is born into aristocracy, but mediocrity can only be achieved through hard work.
  4. This is getting absolutely rediculous... by xeon4life · · Score: 4, Insightful

    American TV has become riddled with reality shows. It's quite discusting:
    * Wife Swap - Who watches this!? Some sick, twisted indiciduals, that's who.
    * Survivor - Isn't this like the 80th episode or something? How many different spins can they put on the challenges?
    * Big Brother - People tune in to this waiting, just anticipating two of the people boarded to have sex.
    * Extreme Makeover - The epitome of our obsession with aesthetic qualities.
    * Much, much more crap...

    Please, turn it off!
    LOST, Adult Swim, and various Comedy Central programs are the only reason I watch TV anymore. They're the only reason I haven't lost all hope in American entertainment.

    --
    Real programmers can write assembly code in any language. -- Larry Wall
    1. Re:This is getting absolutely rediculous... by TheAntiCrust · · Score: 1

      Adult swim is your reason for watching TV? *shudder*

    2. Re:This is getting absolutely rediculous... by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 1

      I'd say the worst is a tie between Wife Swap and He's a Lady. Both make me want to commit genocide equally.

    3. Re:This is getting absolutely rediculous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      It's great fun watching pretentious elitists talk about the USian public being mindless sheep when they can't even spell simple words like 'ridiculous'.

    4. Re:This is getting absolutely rediculous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's great fun watching pretentious elitists talk about the USian public being mindless sheep when they can't even spell simple words like 'ridiculous'.

      Yep, the pretentious elitist Americans are every bit as hilariously stupid as the rest of their people.

    5. Re:This is getting absolutely rediculous... by dhakbar · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So-called reality shows are a huge success for the television networks. The reason?

      They cost jack shit to produce.

      Reality TV is simply a demonstration of marketing genius. The masses have, yet again, been convinced that something is worth watching through exposure to the media hype machine. It's really an incredible marketing victory... people have been completely willing to help the networks along with the largest profit margins they have ever known.

    6. Re:This is getting absolutely rediculous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you watched Extreme Makeover? Most of the people on the show are ugly beyond belief and would invoke instantaneous revulsion in the majority of any population. They don't come out of it stunningly hot, but they are much better suited to a normal life. And that's a good thing.

    7. Re:This is getting absolutely rediculous... by pacc · · Score: 1

      I'd mod you either -1 Terrorist or +1 Unamerican for that, but I'm stuck since it's a tie.

    8. Re:This is getting absolutely rediculous... by TRACK-YOUR-POSITION · · Score: 1

      It's great fun watching pretentious elitists talk about the USian public being mindless sheep when they can't even spell simple words like 'ridiculous'. It's just as much fun to see the mindless sheep misspell "American".

    9. Re:This is getting absolutely rediculous... by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1, Funny

      No, this is not a good thing. All it does is show that with enough makeup stupid ugly people can breed. Stupid and ugly people should not breed. It just goes against the natural laws of selection.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    10. Re:This is getting absolutely rediculous... by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      I tend to disagree. Most of those people looked the way they do because they don't give a shit about their looks or taking care of themselves. That it takes a team of professionals to spit them out looking half decent is pathetic.

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    11. Re:This is getting absolutely rediculous... by Xith · · Score: 1

      The scariest one is The Swan. Taking "ugly" people and performing plastic surgery to make them "beautiful." Talk about issues!

    12. Re:This is getting absolutely rediculous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not the OP, but some people believe American denotes the entire continent - thus including Canadians, Mexicans etc.

      USian is an acceptable shorthand for USA citizens.

    13. Re:This is getting absolutely rediculous... by Barto · · Score: 1

      * Wife Swap - Who watches this!? Some sick, twisted indiciduals, that's who.

      There is a vast number of sick and twisted individuals out there! It's a giant market!

    14. Re:This is getting absolutely rediculous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does misspelling a word have to do with being a mindless sheep?

    15. Re:This is getting absolutely rediculous... by danudwary · · Score: 1


      You know, it really just says something about the way (most) people watch TV now. The reason these shows do well is because people are busy, and you don't have to make plans around being in front of the television at a particular time to catch an interesting show. Lots of the new reality shows are self contained, just like the Law&Order/CSI shows. You can flick through the channels, find one, and sit down and watch it, and understand what's happening without a recap or having ever seen the show before. Lots of reality shows are also shorter, lasting maybe a 1/2 or 1/4 season, if they need to be sequential. TV shows are becoming theme based, rather than story-arc based.

      The brilliance of Global Frequency is that each episode would be self contained. At least in the comics, there's a whole new cast every issue (though I understand they changed that a bit in the TV show). Might have been very interesting.

    16. Re:This is getting absolutely rediculous... by Anonymous+Writer · · Score: 1

      So-called reality shows are a huge success for the television networks. The reason?

      They cost jack shit to produce.

      Didn't reality TV shows become popular around the time the Writers Guild of America was threatening to strike around 2001? These shows don't need writers, so I kind of assumed it was a way of undermining the leverage of the Writers Guild's influence by propagating these kind of shows. Both Survivor and the US version of Big Brother started in 2000. The networks were probably aware a problem was brewing and planning ahead.

    17. Re:This is getting absolutely rediculous... by TRACK-YOUR-POSITION · · Score: 1
      No, actually, it's not. First off, it's no better than "American", because other governments throughout history after the Revolutionary War have named themselves the United States of X. Brazil is one example (maybe the only one), though it eventually renamed.

      Secondly, it's not acceptable because it tends to be used by non-Americans. There's a word for when you give a cultural group a name that the cultural group referred to does not approve of--epithet. USian is only an appropriate turn when you are attacking Americans--which considering that this poster (possibly you) was actually defending Americans in general from one specific American, makes that use incorrect.

      There is very little need to refer to all residents of North and South America (or did you just mean North America?) as one short word, since the people of that great expanse have little in common. Sometimes language rules value efficiency over consistency--and "American" is one of those times.

      Finally, I've yet to come across a Canadian or Mexican who insists on being called American. I think it's likely to offend them, actually.

  5. WB releases pilot by Sonny+Yatsen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Thankfully, though, the WB has released the pilot back to the company that produced it instead of holding onto it like some networks to prevent it from ever being made.

    Right now, Ellis and the folks are negotiating with other television stations with the pilot, which Ellis remarked as impressive. There's still hopes yet, folks. You might still be on the Global Frequency.

    --
    My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
    1. Re:WB releases pilot by jeffx · · Score: 1

      This is excactly my thinking. So many pilots these days are owned by the networks. Meaning that the only way to view shows that may or may not have been good is to buy them at the booths at Dragon*Con. Let's be thankful that it can be picked up by someone.

      I was really excited about the potential in this show. I am a big fan of Warren Ellis' work and had high hopes.

  6. X-Files = Non-Space? by datastalker · · Score: 2

    Granted, it didn't happen IN outer space per se, but I'm pretty sure the entire plot revolved around the concept of aliens from outer space. I seem to remember several UFOs as well... ;)

    1. Re:X-Files = Non-Space? by Sonny+Yatsen · · Score: 1

      Actually, you're wrong. The plot likes to deal with man-made problems to show that not every threat is external. The pilot dealt with an old Soviet EM channeler that was implanted in the head of a sleeper Soviet agent who defected, never realizing that the bomb in his skull will eventually detonate as it decomposed in brain tissue.

      The closest the series ever got to aliens was when an Alien meme took over a couple blocks of the city, turning them into mindless animals.

      --
      My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
    2. Re:X-Files = Non-Space? by Txiasaeia · · Score: 1
      "The pilot dealt with an old Soviet EM channeler that was implanted in the head of a sleeper Soviet agent who defected, never realizing that the bomb in his skull will eventually detonate as it decomposed in brain tissue."

      Are you talking about *X-FILES* here? The pilot episode (01x01) was about a group of kids who were being abducted.

      "The closest the series ever got to aliens..." was when hmm, let's see, one of them attacks Mulder in the X-Files movie? I'm only up to season 7, but I'm thinking that's pretty darn close.

      Out of curiousity, what series are you talking about?

      --
      Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
    3. Re:X-Files = Non-Space? by bcrowell · · Score: 1

      It was the SF part that made me choke on my beer. Vampires and ghosts are SF?

    4. Re:X-Files = Non-Space? by ajs · · Score: 1

      I'm spending too much time on the X-Files here... suffice it to say that almost none of the show had anything to do with space, spacecraft or aliens, even though there was a thread running through the show that involved all of the above.

    5. Re:X-Files = Non-Space? by gyrojoe · · Score: 1

      Errr.. not quite.

      There was one episode (Jump the shark) in which a virus was implanted inside two terrorists in a biological container. This container decomposed at a fixed rate and was set to release at a convention. The Lone Gunmen manage to contain the threat. Not much else that can be said without spoiling the episode.

  7. Global Frequency sounds like more of the same by Saeger · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    Show summary:
    " Global Frequency revolves around an independent defense intelligence organization connected by a worldwide telecommunications web that uses ordinary individuals as agents around the world to fight black ops projects, unexplained phenomena and other problems the government agencies have."

    That's not sci-fi, that's pseudo-scientific psychic crap with conspiracy theory thrown in. And what are the odds that this show gives legitmacy to The Department of Fath^H^H^H^H Homeland Security with cute references to "HomeSec" like they did in TheGrid and The4400 shows?

    I'll be glad if it never airs. So much crap on TV. I've got a grand total of four shows I bother to watch: 1) Enterprise, 2) Stargate, 3) MythBusters, and 4) BattleStar Galactica ("imported" early from the UK).

    --

    --
    Power to the Peaceful
    1. Re:Global Frequency sounds like more of the same by Sonny+Yatsen · · Score: 2, Informative

      Perhaps you should read the comic book before you bash it instead of reading just the show summary.

      Sure, the show summary sounds like more of the same, but the book dealt with issues like bioterror weapons in a large populated city, memetic viruses (ideas that reproduce and self propogate in a malignant way), and the terror organizations who carry out mass bombings.

      But then again, you don't seem to be one of those people who'd actually read instead of reading a blurb.

      --
      My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
    2. Re:Global Frequency sounds like more of the same by Saeger · · Score: 1
      Don't have to time to read everything under the sun. So you've read it, but your summary still sounds like more of the same. Lately there's been a rash of 'terrorism' FUD-shows with slightly different spin.

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    3. Re:Global Frequency sounds like more of the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree here. You definitely should take a look at Ellis\\\' work before you pass it off as more of the same. His work is much different and, though I loathe to use the word, edgy. Beyond that he touches upon alot of interesting uses of technology and the social commentary of all of Ellis\\\' work is top notch. His work is definitely not something to be passed up. Another good example of his work is Transmetropolitan, which is an absolutely excellent comic book.

    4. Re:Global Frequency sounds like more of the same by dcdomain · · Score: 1

      Reading the show summary really doesn't give you much information. I suggest you actually read the comic book series before passing judgement.

    5. Re:Global Frequency sounds like more of the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't read everything so you just make your mind up based on a few sentences and have done with it? And you like Enterprise. Sheesh!

    6. Re:Global Frequency sounds like more of the same by ajs · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's not sci-fi, that's pseudo-scientific psychic crap

      You may not like science fiction of the X-Files variety, but that's tough. It is, in fact, speculative fiction, though almost always very soft SF (the difference between hard and soft SF being the extent to which it is rooted in science, and no there's no absolute line between the two).

      And what are the odds that this show gives legitmacy to The Department of Fath^H^H^H^H Homeland Security

      Ha! You don't know Ellis very well do you? Read Transmetropolitan someday (essentially it comes down to a distopian near-future with our protagonist, a reporter modeled on Hunter S Thompson, attempting to expose the corruption of society to itself). Ellis is anything but the kind of status-quo apologist that you suggest, and I suspect that the fact that he was willing to be involved in this series indicates a) that it was of a quality we have rarely if ever seen on television and b) the very reason that the WB couldn't stomach it.

      I'll be glad if it never airs. So much crap on TV. I've got a grand total of four shows I bother to watch: 1) Enterprise, 2) Stargate, 3) MythBusters, and 4) BattleStar Galactica

      Ulch. You're worried about status-quo apologism, and you hail modern Star Trek? I mean, I'm a softy for Star Trek too because I grew up with it, but to put those two concepts in the same post, suggesting that they are not so mutually exclusive as to be dangerous together is rather striking.

  8. Doomed from the start by ToddML · · Score: 3, Insightful
    It was to be overseen by screenwriter John Rogers ("American Outlaws," "The Core").
    What makes someone see those two writing credits and think "Hey, I've GOT to have that guy!"???
  9. It's not really so bad or misspelled. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It also seems a quintessentially American trait to worry about what OTHER people are watching. Turn it off if you don't like it. You list 4 examples of American horror and 3 reasons to be proud. I agree with you on CC and AS, and I might add The Sopranos, Curb your enthusiasm, Nova and more reasons not to be worried as to the state of American entertainment. I even admit to being intrigued by the current Survivor. To each his own. One thing seems clear to me, on most nights of the week, something good can be found in American entertainment.

    1. Re:It's not really so bad or misspelled. by LiquidHAL · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's beyond hating it because other people are watching it. The networks are airing more and more of this crap, people are watching more and more, and good shows get canceled or not picked up to make room for more mindless reality shows. That's what pisses people off about them.

    2. Re:It's not really so bad or misspelled. by ajs · · Score: 2, Informative

      As soneone summarized one of my other posts: Sturgen's Law.

      Specficially, you are looking at everything that is on television today and comparing it only to the television that you remember because it was good enough to maintain a niche in our culture. Go look at Knight Rider and consider that for the time it came out it was reasonably well filmed television and slightly above average SF. It hurts just to say that, but it's true.

      Reality TV got you down? Go watch some Candid Camera or America's Funniest Home Videos. It really has been this bad for decades. Some of the things that have graced the small screen over the years would turn your stomach.

      Today, shows like The West Wing (yes, even post-Sorkin, though it's gone a long way down-hill), Lost, Veronica Mars, The Daily Show and South Park are orders of magnitude better than the crap I was watching on prime-time television while growing up. These shows are still not nearly as good as they could be, but I take heart in the state of the art. Nova isn't what it once was, but it's still good. Brittish TV is starting to invade again. Inside the Actor's Studio is often more enlightening in an hour than any 30 hours of E! and Tech TV is occasionally useful.

      So what's to complain? Set up your TiVo and record what you like. Of course, you should ignore the crap. That's what a TiVo is for!

  10. WB? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought they'd air anything... look at all the crap that's on there now!

  11. OT question. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 1

    ideas that reproduce and self propogate in a malignant way

    Totally offtopic question. This idea, stated as such, seems really... really... off-putting. Who believes that there are ideas, ideas, that we mustn't be exposed to, because they'll do something evil. Sounds like a standard censorship argument, with a blank into which can be written "Porn", "Scientology" or "Jesus". Is this what memetics is about? What a disappointment, if it is.

    --grendel drago

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
    1. Re:OT question. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Who believes that there are ideas, ideas, that we mustn't be exposed to, because they'll do something evil.

      I don't think anyone doubts that ideas can be dangerous to those exposed to them. On the simplest level, "eat arsenic and you'll be cured of all disease" is an idea with lethal potential.

      The only question would be what steps you feel are acceptable in fighting ideas. Can you only combat them with alternative ideas "don't touch it!" or can other steps ever be acceptable?

      Does the mental capacity of the audience make a difference? e.g. can it be appropriate to use force to prevent someone from communicating maliciously dangerous ideas to children? or to the mentally ill?

      Is the likely outcome relevant? Is it ever acceptable to treat information/disinformation centres as military targets because they spread ideas dangerous to your cause? There's no point in us pretending our countries don't do this, we know they do. Is it wrong because all ideas are somehow sacrosanct?

    2. Re:OT question. by Saeger · · Score: 1
      Porn, pro-choice, questioning the logic of pre-emptive-war.... these ideas and more have been newly classified as dangerous and 'infectious mimeases' by the Bush administration. :)

      Think good thoughts, brother.

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    3. Re:OT question. by shawb · · Score: 1

      Who believes that there are ideas, ideas, that we mustn't be exposed to, because they'll do something evil

      Like the commonly held belief in many parts of Africa that having sex with a virgin will cure you of AIDS? This idea has caused the rape and subsequent spread of HIV to many children...

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
  12. You\'re missing out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure, it\'s a similar idea, but this is no Bruckheimer produced crap, it\'s apparently extremely loyal to the graphic novel and, if Warren Ellis\' other work is any indication then it will be a far cry from the current material based on the ideas.

    1. Re:You\'re missing out. by Saeger · · Score: 1
      Yeah, I'll probably give the pilot of chance if it ever airs.

      btw, what's with the extra backslashes? slashdot isn't doing an extra addslashes before inserting into the db. proxy munging? bad browser?

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
  13. Aliens are considered 'non-space sci-fi' ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "non-space SF since the X-Files went away"

    What, are you kidding me??

  14. X-Files, "non-space SF"? by whitroth · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Not a bloody chance.

    SF has *science* in it - one definition is that it must obey all known scientific laws, unless breaking one is required for the story, and then even the handwaving explantion must be reasonable.

    Fantasy is *NOT* SF - the two are related, but not the same. However, as Lord Dunsay said, fantasy is *very* hard to do right: you have to make all the rules...and then *NEVER* break any of them, or the reader's suspenders of disbelief go "snap", and you've lost it.

    X-Files was inconsistant conspiracy theory. This is about one step short of, say, Bush's energy policy, or his fight against accepting that global warming exists, and is human-caused - that is, the Hollywood idea that a "theory" is what you come up with in the nightmare after you've had too much bheer and pizza.

    Non-space sf on tv? Max Headroom. Non-space fantasy on tv? The Chronicle.

    None of the above? Cattlecar Galaxative (22 planets strafed to death, and a flamable covered wagon, er, spaceship in the hard vacuum of space).

    mark "s'ppose a movie of Charles de Lint
    would be too much to ask for"

    1. Re:X-Files, "non-space SF"? by drlake · · Score: 1

      SF has *science* in it - one definition is that it must obey all known scientific laws, unless breaking one is required for the story, and then even the handwaving explantion must be reasonable.

      That's a very restrictive definition of Science-fiction, and one which rules out one hell of a lot of literature and programming otherwise considered science-fiction. I can't think of any Sci-Fi which would qualify based on that definition.

      A much better set of definitions includes:

      A literary or cinematic genre in which fantasy, typically based on speculative scientific discoveries or developments, environmental changes, space travel, or life on other planets, forms part of the plot or background.

      and

      literary fantasy involving the imagined impact of science on society

      Under both of those definitions, which are much more consistent with common parlance than the definition you offer, the X-files fits within the science-fiction genre.

    2. Re:X-Files, "non-space SF"? by norkakn · · Score: 1

      both clark and asimov draw very clear lines between SF and SciFi. what the parent is talking about is their distinction.

    3. Re:X-Files, "non-space SF"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      both clark and asimov draw very clear lines between SF and SciFi.

      Neither of those people are lexicographers and while the quirks of their own terminology might form an interesting discussion in itself, it has nothing to do with whether it is correct to describe X-files as "SF" in general conversation, or indeed a Slashdot article.

      The normal use of the term "SF" as applied to literature and entertainment clearly covers the X-files.

    4. Re:X-Files, "non-space SF"? by Random_Goblin · · Score: 1

      I can't recall which one but the first arthur c clarke book i started to read had a line describing space as being cold at least -400 degrees C... any credit he had as any kind of authority evaporated at that point.

    5. Re:X-Files, "non-space SF"? by ajs · · Score: 1

      Fandom in general has drawn this arbitrary "Skiffy" vs "Science Fiction" (preferably said with nose up and with a faint hint of a bad impersonation of a Brittish accent... if you're Brittish this might take some practice) line down the middle of the genre, but it's not only abritrary; it's also incosistent.

      We look at The Nine Billion Names of God whose only claim to "science" is the fact that a computer is used to print out words on paper. The story is entirely about the mix of eastern mysticism with western pragmatism. The story just recently won the Retrospecive Hugo for its year (53 I think).

      Look also at dozens of Twilight Zone episodes (often hailed as a pinical of TV SF) that have nothing at all to do with science.

      Look at the science fiction sub-genre of alternate worlds. Nothing at all to do with science.

      The science in "science fiction" is not intended to indicate that there is scientific riggor in the stories. In fact, the term was thrust upon the genre by people who wouldn't know a science if they hit one on the highway. It was just a label that classified a genre of speculative fiction. that was inspired by the scientific curiosity of the general public in the early and mid-part of the 20th century. Speculative fiction that deals with topics that are controversial, wierd, absurd or frightening are not dismissed from the genere on that basis alone.

      Getting back to the X-Files, of a pair of FBI investigators who have starkly different views on the role of science, skepticism and faith in their work seems fertile ground for science fiction, and indeed it was. The first three years of the X-Files were some of the best science fiction on television a the time, and they rank well among the classics of the medium. Are they up to the standard of print SF? Not often, no, but as JMS has pointed out, a season of television is around 22 episodes which must be written in about 3-6 months' time. Each episode is roughly novella-length. Any genre produced at that pace will suffer.

      Still, X-Files had a lot to say about the advance of technology and our society. I'm ok with that.

    6. Re:X-Files, "non-space SF"? by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      Exactly.

      People who think there's a hard line between sci-fi and fantasy need to glance at Pern. I, personally, don't think that's an example of good writing, but defining that as either sci-fi or fantasy is absurd. It's fantasy following sci-fi rules.

      Or compare, say, Discworld and HHGttG. They've both saterical societies as a reflection on the real world. HHGttG has 'magic' in it, with improbablity fields floating around, ghosts, total perspective vortexes, etc, and Discworld has of technology hitting it left and right, completely turning the world upside down. They're a lot closer to each other than, say, HHGttG and 2001, a Space Oddessy, or Discworld and the Chronicles of Thomas Convenant.

      And, yes, historical worlds are not sci-fi. I would classify them as a third category, next to sci-fi and fantasy...of course, like I said, those categories are plenty unclear in the first place.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  15. Some things may not be worth saving by Gunark · · Score: 1

    Has anyone considered the possibility that the show was not picked up because the pilot sucked? I understand Slashdot's efforts to champion this kind of programming, but you know there is such a thing as shitty Sci Fi.

    1. Re:Some things may not be worth saving by Nik+Picker · · Score: 2, Funny

      yes , and paramount has did promise us no more Star Trek franchise..... nope wait a moment ... buggerville, there it is ... another Enterpise season......... how the heck did this beat firefly for renewal..

      --
      And thats why Firecrackers and kittens don't mix.
    2. Re:Some things may not be worth saving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      but you know there is such a thing as shitty Sci Fi.

      Yep - Stargate is proof number one of that.

    3. Re:Some things may not be worth saving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yeah, I remember all the hype over Rob Zombie's movie House of 1000 Corpses. The implication was that it couldn't get a distributor because it was "too shocking". Instead, it was just direct-to-video-quality sewage with a better soundtrack than most. I'm a big fan of Ellis' work, but anything can go wrong taking comic material to another medium. Just ask Alan Moore.

  16. What about those of us starving for a... by Banner · · Score: 1

    ... good 'in space' series? The New Star Trek sucks, stopped watching it after episode 2. Stargate Atlantis isn't too bad, but it really doesn't count as 'in space' it's really just 'vampires in space'.

  17. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN -1 REDUNDANT! by ajs · · Score: 1

    Specifically, the grandparent is a cut-and-paste of MY post, and the context has been sadly removed.

  18. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN -1 REDUNDANT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And he didn't even fix your spelling errors ("devistation", eh?). The bastard! :)

  19. MOD PARENT DOWN, STOLE POST FROM INTERVIEW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    n/t

  20. hbo by zxflash · · Score: 1

    if wb doesn't want it they need just add rediculous amounts of profanity to the pilot and run it over to hbo

    --

    All the torrents you could want.
  21. Sound like "And God Spoke" by serutan · · Score: 1

    The WB has passed on the pilot. However, they've also been real gentlemen and released it back to the studio to be taken elsewhere. Many networks hold onto pilots out of spite, fearing that if it succeeds elsewhere, they'll look bad.

    This sounds disturbingly like what happened in The Making of 'And God Spoke' -- a mockumentary about two eternally optimistic indie filmmakers shooting a cheesy biblical epic. "Very unusual!" they gloat, when the big studio drops the project but lets them keep it. As if this is a good sign.

  22. Definitions by DragonHawk · · Score: 1

    "I'm more a fan of "hard core" SF like Star Trek myself..."

    Heh. A lot of people would object to calling Trek "hard core SF". The term "hard SF" is usually used to describe stuff that's heavily based on real-world modern-day science knowledge and theory. Larry Niven's "Neutron Star" is a good example.

    The one thing that appears to be universally true about these genres is that if you ask X different people what the definition of "SF" is, you will get at least X different answers.

    That's not a bug, it's a feature.

    --

    dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
    I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
    1. Re:Definitions by Sein · · Score: 1

      Of course, any reasonably sane definition of Hard SF excludes handwavig crap like ST:TNG and (oh god) ST: Voyager - science fantasy, and *bad* science fantasy at that.

      'Course, that also applies to Niven in some instances - if you want to be anal about it, hard SF can turn into a small subset of near-future technotrillers without the Tom Clancy handwaving...

      I think the difference between hard and soft SF has more to do with the rigourousness of the changelogs - as in: "Given this once change, what *else* will change along with it, and how will that affect humans and society?"

      Of course, sooner or later one has to stop with the logic and start with the "It just IS, allright?" to get on with writing the story instead of the backstory notes - but decent Hard SF has usually gone at least a couple levels deep in the changelogic tree before stopping.

      Bad SF tends to have nothing of the kind beyond an "ain't it cool" premise.

    2. Re:Definitions by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      That's why it put it in quotes, I was only saying it was "hard core" compared to X-files.

      I still think the basic definition of SF is quite clear:
      From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

      Science fiction, generally speaking, is a form of speculative fiction which deals principally with the impact of imagined science and/or technology upon society or individuals.
      ----------
      I still think this makes X-files SF, but makes Buffy fantasy.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor