Slashdot Mirror


Sci-Fi Channel to Pick Up John Doe

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

203 comments

  1. Torrent for the old episodes by HeavyMS · · Score: 1, Informative
    1. Re:Torrent for the old episodes by AwaxSlashdot · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
    2. Re:Torrent for the old episodes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you!

  2. Now by OverlordQ · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    1. Re:Now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    2. Re:Now by no_pets · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

      I like them and hope they keep up the work.

      --
      "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." - Shepard Book Quoting Malcolm Reynolds
    3. Re:Now by luna69 · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

      Precisely.

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

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

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

      --
      No gods, no demons, and no masters. Secular Humanism!
    4. Re:Now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    5. Re:Now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

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

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

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

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

    6. Re:Now by Kohath · · Score: 2, Funny

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

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

      That's going to be a good movie.

    7. Re:Now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SciFi made that pile of crap starring Tom Cruise?

    8. Re:Now by Belgand · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

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

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

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

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

    9. Re:Now by netglen · · Score: 1

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

    10. Re:Now by modecx · · Score: 0

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

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

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

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    11. Re:Now by Belseth · · Score: 1

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

    12. Re:Now by Wolfkin · · Score: 1

      Now, I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure that almost nobody watches Stargate Atlantis

      I watch it. This season of Atlantis is considerably better than this season or last season of SG1. I couldn't care less about the Ori; it's not like the deus ex machina isn't waiting overhead in every episode to save the galaxy...

      Atlantis started off kinda horror-movie-esque, but has moved into being a more careful and consistent show than SG1 is. Last night's, for example, had McKay (the Carter-equivalent) monologue an explanation for about 20 seconds of an otherwise glaring plot hole that on SG1 would probably have been ignored, if the last season and a half are any guide.

      --
      Property law should use #'EQ, not #'EQUAL.
    13. Re:Now by luna69 · · Score: 3, Funny

      > Anyway, who besides an adolescent male appends '69' to their username?

      Someone who knows history? What happened in 1969? Could it be...no, wait a minute, I think I've got it....we landed on the moon? The moon, as in "Luna"?

      --
      No gods, no demons, and no masters. Secular Humanism!
    14. Re:Now by odourpreventer · · Score: 2, Funny
      Squirrels Gone Wild

      Mmm, Furry Porn.

      No, wait... D'oh!

    15. Re:Now by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      What I don't get is how they get John Rhys-Davies to star in every single one of them. Did the Sci-Fi Network kidnap his kid or something?

      I mean, this is the guy who laughed at Indiana Jones for being named after a dog and now he's playing the role of the cruise ship captain of the ship that got invaded by the chupacabra!

      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0435617/ - not making this up!

      John Rhys-Davies, please, call the police. They know how to handle hostage situations... and if they screw up, seriously man, losing a child is probably less painful than starring in the next Sci-Fi horror movie.

    16. Re:Now by Belgand · · Score: 1

      Glad you enjoy it. Personally I don't care for either of them. I'm merely basing my observations on the fact that everyone I know who likes Stargate (i.e. many of my friends and my girlfriend) don't care for Atlantis. Likewise I've heard very little in favor of it on the Internet. I'm sure there are fans, but they seem to be far fewer in number (reasonable as it is a spin-off).

    17. Re:Now by mrbooze · · Score: 1

      If you keep an eye on the ratings, very often those crappy random monster movies are the highest-rated shows on sci-fi every week, and at the very least tend to stay neck-and-neck with Stargate and BSG. But I've seen many weeks where things like "Pterodactyl 3: The Birdening" garnered much higher ratings than everything else.

    18. Re:Now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I watch Atlantis -- in fact, I really enjoyed season 1, and I'm loving season 2. With the exception of Shepherd (needs to be less whiny), I think the main cast works extremely well. McKay cracks me up.

    19. Re:Now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually SciFi channel purchased several movies this past summer i believe 24 movies for around 25 million. It was known at that time that they were B movies and not something that was going to market.

    20. Re:Now by Draconius42 · · Score: 1

      ooh, burn.

    21. Re:Now by secolactico · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Oi, Stargate is good.

      No it isn't. Unless you have a "thing" for Mcgyver.

      --
      No sig
    22. Re:Now by NateE · · Score: 1
      I read the same thing somewhere. Those stupid B monster movies get SciFi high ratings. Then I tried to guess what demographic would enjoy watching recently filmed B monster movies.

      Decided my sanity would be better off not going there.

      Led by Ghost Hunters, the SCI FI Wednesday block of "alternative reality series" also drew big numbers, with double- and triple-digit increases among young adults. The channel's Saturday action movies helped out with such hits as "Pterodactyl," which became SCI FI's highest-rated original movie ever with more than 3.1 million viewers.

      In spite of stiff competition from network premieres, the Stargate SG-1 finale and a new episode of Battlestar Galactica were the top two cable entertainment programs among persons 25 to 54 on September 16. A week later, the mid-season finale of Galactica drew 2.3 million viewers and became the number one entertainment program on cable for the night in the same demographic.

      http://www.gateworld.net/news/2005/09/scificelebra tesrecordthird.shtml
    23. Re:Now by Surazal · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sir, your reply gets three snaps and one "You go, girl!"

      *snap* snap* snap* You go, girl! :^)

      --
      --- Journals are boring; Go to my web page instead
    24. Re:Now by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      And what would they show the rest of the time? Reruns? (ever watch the channel during the day?)

      These movies make them MONEY, they're cheap to make and get good ratings. Without money they can't make any series/movies period, and it's not like these movies are all they show. They fill in the voids where they can't put in a better show, and do better than yet more reruns.

      Don't like them? Then don't watch them (if they weren't made, other shit would be put in those time slots), althrough without them you also wouldn't have as many good shows since the channel would have less money overall.

    25. Re:Now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      . They need to stop making the crappy movies and instead start seeking some new original programming and not the crappy original shows they've done in the past that nobody watched.

      From what others have posted, those movies "nobody watches" are actually watched by a lot of people. They're shitty but "fun" movies, cost very little and probably more than make up for their cost. I doubt reruns (which is what they'd be showing instead) would make as much profit. So potentially, thanks to those movies they have MORE money for original programming, not less.

    26. Re:Now by DDLKermit007 · · Score: 1

      Yeah...because ya know letting others make up your mind for you can't ever go wrong. Oh wait...your girlfriend dressed you this morning didn't she? I consider myself a pretty big fan of SG-1 as well as a good number of my friends and we all seem to enjoy Atlantis thuroughly. The main thing you need though to enjoy both mainly is a Tivo however. MMmmmm...no commercials...

    27. Re:Now by Jarlsberg · · Score: 1

      If no-one was watching, it would have been approved for a second season, let alone a third. Stargate Atlanis has its moments of very good sci-fi mixed with a few bad episodes. Give it a chance, some episodes are stellar.

    28. Re:Now by onedotzero · · Score: 1

      Actually, some of my usernames have '7A69' tagged on the end.

      Uh.. sorry. I shouldn't have admitted that. Good thing my reputation is already in the gutter :D

    29. Re:Now by KermitJunior · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm so thankful you didn't say, "Keep up the good work."

      --
      There is a Universal Life Value Check it
    30. Re:Now by FlopEJoe · · Score: 1
      "currently, though bringing Dr. Who to the US is a smart move"

      I know this thread is dead but, for the record, it irks me that Doctor Who is coming to SciFi. It forced their hand to delay a US DVD release that I was looking forward to and capping or VCRing anything on SciFi is worthless with all their flying ads during shows. Entertainment News

  3. Well... by Shadikka · · Score: 1

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

  4. Farscape! by vjl · · Score: 1, Redundant

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

    /vjl/

    1. Re:Farscape! by dgatwood · · Score: 1
      Here's hoping this starts a trend. It would totally rock if they picked up a new season of Roswell....

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

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    2. Re:Farscape! by dlmarti · · Score: 1

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

    3. Re:Farscape! by smartin · · Score: 1

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

      --
      The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
    4. Re:Farscape! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Farscape will never return as a series. Ben Browder has moved on to Stargate SG1.

    5. Re:Farscape! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish they'd pick up Charlie Jade. I saw the pilot at a convention and was amazed at how good it was.

    6. Re:Farscape! by EpsCylonB · · Score: 1

      step out of your geek world dude

    7. Re:Farscape! by nathanm · · Score: 1

      SciFi has run at least two Firefly marathons in the last month.

  5. One side effect of infinite knowledge... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  6. Cliffhanger by pantropik · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Cliffhanger by halcyon1234 · · Score: 3, Informative
      The series ended with a cliffhanger (first season finale), which I've always thought is a pretty nasty thing to do to your audience, not that I'd expect anything better from Fox.

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

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

    2. Re:Cliffhanger by frovingslosh · · Score: 1
      It was pretty obvious from watching even a few episodes of the show that the writers had no idea of where they were going with the main plot of the show and were just winging it as they went. That tells me it's pointless to watch and try to figure out what will happen on the show, since the illusion of any logic behind the story is only created later.

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

      --
      I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    3. Re:Cliffhanger by vjl · · Score: 1

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

    4. Re:Cliffhanger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

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

    5. Re:Cliffhanger by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      The supposed cliff hanger certainly reinforces my belief.

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

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

      SPOILER:
      SPOILER:
      SPOILER:
      SPOILER:

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

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    6. Re:Cliffhanger by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

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

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    7. Re:Cliffhanger by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Actually, that cliffhanger was the show's fault. (Not that I give fox any slack for canceling the series.)

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

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

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

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

      And, unlike

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    8. Re:Cliffhanger by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Actually, you want to know where the story was ultimate going? It did have an overall premise behind John Doe, which was revealed after the show to be:

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

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

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

      Hence, he became 'The Phoenix'.

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

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    9. Re:Cliffhanger by Erwos · · Score: 1

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

      -Erwos

      --
      Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
    10. Re:Cliffhanger by contrapunctus · · Score: 1
      Rule of thumb - big name actors do not take unimportant bit parts.
      Then what is a cameo?
    11. Re:Cliffhanger by MrBandersnatch · · Score: 1

      Indeed! I actually managed to get my wife interested in this show on the basis of the first few episodes, which were VERY good. Sadly things really degenerated towards the end of the series and it really felt like the writers had lost direction and were throwing things together for shock value. Anyways, pity it wasnt at least given time to wrap things up.

      Incidently this aired on the UK latenight soft porn^H^H^H^HSciFi channel about 2 years ago and reminded me of "Now and Again" initially.....and of course it shared a similar fate! Was EITHER series given any mention of being cancelled while they heavly promoted them? Like hell!

    12. Re:Cliffhanger by cancrine · · Score: 1

      American Gothic is not a Fox show. It premiered on CBS.

      --
      Links
    13. Re:Cliffhanger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha! Seriously? Do you have a source for that? They gave a sort of post-series spiler and said how he knew so much, but I never heard that before.

    14. Re:Cliffhanger by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Then what is a cameo?

      A single non-reoccuring appearance, generally as a character of particular importance to that specific episode.

      Any other showbiz vocabulary questions? Perhaps you were wondering about foley or gaffer or maybe denoument?

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    15. Re:Cliffhanger by contrapunctus · · Score: 1
      Any other showbiz vocabulary questions? Perhaps you were wondering about foley or gaffer or maybe denoument?
      No but you might want to look up humor.
    16. Re:Cliffhanger by Forkenhoppen · · Score: 1

      Brimstone.. man.. that show was frigging awesome. Not really what I'd call a nerd show, but it definitely had a lot going for it. Amazing casting for one; the main character and the devil were both absolutely awesome.

      I really can't say enough good things about that show. I really wish they'd bring it to DVD.

      [Whoop whoop, not for kids..]

    17. Re:Cliffhanger by savorymedia · · Score: 1

      Um... If I remember correctly... it was supposed to be a renewal for season FIVE.

      --
      1 is the square root of all evil.
    18. Re:Cliffhanger by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      No but you might want to look up humor.

      Just as soon as you look up delivery.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    19. Re:Cliffhanger by contrapunctus · · Score: 1

      You mom thought I had good delivery.

    20. Re:Cliffhanger by Faw · · Score: 1

      What about the cliffhanger for Space: Above and Beyond?? I hate FOX.

  7. On SciFi Channel Programming by Lord+Norton · · Score: 1

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

    1. Re:On SciFi Channel Programming by shoptroll · · Score: 1

      Sounds like Fox to me.

      What other network is capable of aborting it's most successful and award winning shows only to get bit in the rear by DVD sales?

      --
      Insert Sig Here
    2. Re:On SciFi Channel Programming by Lord+Norton · · Score: 1

      Fox is worse. Especially, for dropping FireFly.

    3. Re:On SciFi Channel Programming by shoptroll · · Score: 1

      And Family Guy, Futurama, and lately Arrested Development...

      Why Fox would cancel any of the above, and run "The Simple Life" for ~5 seasons is way beyond my understanding of logic and/or reason.

      --
      Insert Sig Here
  8. English? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    Huh?

    1. Re:English? by pantropik · · Score: 3, Informative

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

    2. Re:English? by Segway+Ninja · · Score: 1

      Was this also the show with all the funky remote viewing and stuff in it? Or am I thinking something else.

    3. Re:English? by artifex2004 · · Score: 1
      Was this also the show with all the funky remote viewing and stuff in it? Or am I thinking something else.

      You're not thinking of The Greatest American Hero, are you? :)
    4. Re:English? by Aurix · · Score: 1

      Yep, that's the one.

      John Doe was awesome. However, the whole "you die and you learn everything" just doesn't cut it. The final episode was a massive cliffhanger. We can only hope they release more episodes =)

  9. At least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    1. Re:At least... by cfuse · · Score: 1

      If you go around inserting animals you can hardly be surprised when they bite back.

  10. spoiler! by jx100 · · Score: 1

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

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

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

  11. Main actor has new job by hlopez · · Score: 0

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

    1. Re:Main actor has new job by pantropik · · Score: 1

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

    2. Re:Main actor has new job by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      And in their last run of the series, they'll stop showing episodes just before the end, because when it comes time to change up their schedule they don't give a damn about where in each run each non-original series is.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  12. But by Trip+Ericson · · Score: 1

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

    1. Re:But by supersocialist · · Score: 1

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

  13. Took a little suspension of disbelief, but not bad by koreth · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I was pretty skeptical about that show when it started, but it grew on me. Its big saving grace is that the lead does a great job of acting like a bit of a dork most of the time.

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

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

  14. Premise used on X-Files? by BertieBaggio · · Score: 1

    Interesting concept, but...

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

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

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

    --
    If all you have is a grenade, pretty soon every problem looks like a foxhole -- MightyYar
  15. John Doe brought down Firefly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

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

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

    1. Re:John Doe brought down Firefly by pantropik · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    2. Re:John Doe brought down Firefly by luna69 · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

      Oh well.

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

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

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

      --
      No gods, no demons, and no masters. Secular Humanism!
    3. Re:John Doe brought down Firefly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    4. Re:John Doe brought down Firefly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

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

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

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

    5. Re:John Doe brought down Firefly by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

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

    6. Re:John Doe brought down Firefly by BearRanger · · Score: 1
      On a related note: if I could, I would gladly pay a nominal fee to watch serial shows like BsG, FF, etc. without commercials. If I could buy access to what amounts to about 40 minutes of actual content, skip the commercials, and see the show in high def, I'd GLADLY pay the content producers.

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

    7. Re:John Doe brought down Firefly by Pizaz · · Score: 1

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

    8. Re:John Doe brought down Firefly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad it is not avaliable in Norway, even though we do have the itunes service.. The only way to watch such shows here, is by illegally downloading them from the internet or wait years for a dvd that wont be in your region.

    9. Re:John Doe brought down Firefly by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      I think this is the model you're going to see come first to the internet, for broadband users. A person will be able to buy the rights to download a season of a show (call it 20 eps) for a fixed price; or a single show for a higher price. The first couple of shows will be free in order to get people hooked. There won't be any commercials (who'd watch 'em?) but there will be obvious product placement (e.g., the main character is often seen drinking a Pepsi). Advertising will also be sold on the web site that offers the shows, for very high prices. But most of the money will be made in fees, which even if it only amounts to, say, $1.50/show/person, is far, far greater than the overall returns on normal TV.

      This will be coupled with a service, which we'll call MovieWatcher or TVWatcher (both of which I hereby copyright, for future reference). The Watcher programs run in the background on your computer and download the shows you've paid for as they become available, flagging a notice when the downloads are complete ("You've Got TV!"). That way you don't have to do *anything* - you pay for the shows and they automagically appear on your computer as the episodes are completed. You can watch them anytime you want, keep copies for your personal library, etc. And I'm claiming this idea under the DMCA as well, just in case anyone thinks of trying to cut me out of my fair share. ;-)

      Not only is this blazingly convenient, it also comes without the annoyance of those goddamned commercials we all hate so much. We can watch what we want when we want, only directly supporting the shows that we're interested in. Nobody else gets a 'piece' of our action. And if a particular studio wants to hawk a new, unknown show, next will come the concept of 'bundling' - get 3 shows for the price of 2! Buy an entire one year subscription to show X and you'll get a season of show Y for just an additional $5! Etc, etc.

      Why would anyone pay for shows when you can just torrent them? For the same reason 95% of us still pay for music when we could easily download it for free: because 95% of us aren't thieving little college shits who think they 'deserve' free music and free TV and free movies just because they're wasting good oxygen.

      Watch; it'll happen. And sooner than people think.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    10. Re:John Doe brought down Firefly by ejp1082 · · Score: 1

      Of course then marketing shows to the public becomes an issue:

      If only there was some hugely popular web site that a million geeks read every day. Perhaps one that talks about a second-rate cable channel picking up the re-runs of a four year old failed television show as if it were news.

      Alas though, I guess marketers are going to be screwed....

    11. Re:John Doe brought down Firefly by ejp1082 · · Score: 1

      I still wonder when/if Google will get into advertising in videos. It seems to me that if you're watching a TV show on the internet, there's no reason to ditch the ad-driven model that already finances the industry. Google can just make it that much better, because it's really no different than AdSense: dynamically insert one or two targeted ads in the middle of any video I'm watching, choosing the ads based on content and my own preferences. It's gotta be more lucrative than the way it works now, with advertisements tied to a specific show targetted at a "demographic". Then give consumers the option to either watch it free (with ads) or purchase it (without ads).

      Why would anyone pay for shows when you can just torrent them? For the same reason 95% of us still pay for music when we could easily download it for free: because 95% of us aren't thieving little college shits who think they 'deserve' free music and free TV and free movies just because they're wasting good oxygen.

      Some of us just use bittorrent in lieu of our VCR - since there's nothing you can do with the former that you can't do with the latter. As long as I'm subscribing to cable, I'm paying for that content, and last I checked at least, format shifting and time shifting are still fair use rights.

    12. Re:John Doe brought down Firefly by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      I know. "...and solves crimes!" is just such a lazy excuse for a series idea.

      So how did you feel about Profit?

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  16. Pointless to watch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  17. Now pick up - Threshold by gadlaw · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

    --
    Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
    1. Re:Now pick up - Threshold by shawnce · · Score: 1

      They are running Threshold on SciFi soon it looks like.

    2. Re:Now pick up - Threshold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

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

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

      ---

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

      ---

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

      ---

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

    3. Re:Now pick up - Threshold by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Of course, if everyone did that there'd be no shows, because everybody would be waiting for it to reach the magical two years. I just accept the fact that it might be cancelled, but it is good while it lasts...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    4. Re:Now pick up - Threshold by Pollardito · · Score: 1

      that's odd. i had trouble watching all of the first episode of Threshhold because it was a carnival of cliche, yet i've enjoyed Invasion. i guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

    5. Re:Now pick up - Threshold by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      of course the crapfest Invasion will probably be on air for years to come.

      I certainly hope so. Invasion has two very hot babes: the sheriff's daughter (yum yum!) and the girl I call "Daylight" for reasons best left unexplained (second wife of the ranger guy). Really, the babes are enough to keep my interest for years to come....

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
  18. SCI-FI channel sucks bad. I quit watching it ! by zymano · · Score: 0, Offtopic

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

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

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

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

    Agree ?

  19. I used to watch it by Kohath · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    1. Re:I used to watch it by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Interesting
      No it's not. The Pretender actually made sense.

      The only secret Jerrod was trying to figure out is who his parents were and what happened to them, and that's completely unrelated to his abilities, which is basically just incredible acting talent combined with very good problem solving.

      The two series may look superficially the same, but Jerrod part of The Pretender was actually much more like Quantum Leap. Show up, pretend to be someone, solve problems with your superior skills and knowledge, leave. Although Jerrod focused on crimes and Sam on future problems.

      The Center part of the shows, however...I can't offhandedly think of an analog of that, although I'm sure it's existed. Basically, people unravelling the vast web of lies and deception around them. I suspect Twin Peaks would qualify, although I have not seen that, and The Center never even appeared normal.

      And, although people rarely caught on, they were two completely seperate TV shows that happened to inhabit the same hour. Seriously, about 1% of the airtime required you actually knowing about both 'shows'. You could have watched just Jarrod, and known some mysterious people were after him, or just watched Ms. Parker and company, and known her overall goal was to catch someone, but she always failed, but the amount of crossover between the plots was almost nothing. An editor could sit down and slice them apart to make 'Jerrod' show or 'The Center' show, and almost no footage would be in both.

      I can't think of any TV show that's done that.

      As for John Doe, the real analog would be Nowhere Man or, indirectly, The Prisoner, or even something like Strange Luck.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  20. Other Dead Series? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

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

  21. I Don't know who sci-fi channel's audience is by SF-Nacht · · Score: 1

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

    1. Re:I Don't know who sci-fi channel's audience is by toad3k · · Score: 1

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

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

    2. Re:I Don't know who sci-fi channel's audience is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    3. Re:I Don't know who sci-fi channel's audience is by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

      That scene was pretty lame. But in its defence, the question was actually (I think) the FIRST version of DOS. I can't imagine it being THAT long. I have to say though that it killed the entire scene. Asking him all of these mundane questions was pretty cool. The DOS thing though, eck. It was an "alright" show, better than some of the other crap on the air.

    4. Re:I Don't know who sci-fi channel's audience is by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Asking him all of these mundane questions was pretty cool. The DOS thing though, eck.

      The point was to ask an impossible question and have him answer it. Hence something mystical/futuristic was at foot.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  22. Good stuff finished already? by Wylfing · · Score: 1
    Jan 20?!?!? Does this mean the new Stargate and Battlestar Galactica episodes are already finished?

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

    --
    Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.
    1. Re:Good stuff finished already? by viper432 · · Score: 1

      You will be happy to know she is returning.

  23. The Fox Friday Rerun Channel by Ray+Radlein · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    1. Re:The Fox Friday Rerun Channel by DrBlubGut · · Score: 0

      Wow did I love Strange Luck. I had forgoton that it was a FOX casualty.

  24. Oh yes by air · · Score: 1

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

  25. Re:SCI-FI channel sucks bad. I quit watching it ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have TO disagree WITH YOU on this ONE.

  26. Re:SCI-FI channel sucks bad. I quit watching it ! by djgoofywhitekid · · Score: 1

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

  27. now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    they need to pick up dark angel.

    1. Re:now... by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      God no. How do you take a show about a hot girl with superpowers and make it SO GODDAMNED BORING? In one of the few episodes I saw, she got captured and put in prison and she was going to die because she needs an injection of some chemical to keep her alive. Then she tried to escape from the prison, but couldn't jump high enough. And that was about the most action-packed thing that happened whatsoever. And I'm sitting there thinking, "wow, great superhero here. She should team up with Aquaman. But at least Aquaman doesn't need an injection every day to live."

    2. Re:now... by JimiSpier · · Score: 0

      Dark Angel was lame.. Its very rare to find a hot woman who knows how to fight and if they do fight they are rarely hot.. I couldn't watch the show cause it didn't have a good storyline it was just a series to show off tits and ass to nerds.. More or less like Xena was the ultimate lesbo fantasy for both men and dykes..

      However to each their own, I'm sure there are shows that I would watch that you would have similar comments on. So, no offence intended just blowing off steam after a child's birthday party..lol

      --
      Jimi Spier
      www.jimispier.com - My tunes
    3. Re:now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you dare insult Jessica Alba and her fine, fine ass.

    4. Re:now... by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      Do not insult Xena by bringing it up while talking about Dark Angel.

      And I don't know where you got that Xena was a 'lesbo fantasy'. I suspect if they had wanted that they would have, you know, actually come out and stated that Gabby and Xena were in that kind of relationship.

      Yes, once the rumors started they'd drop little hints and whatnot, but that's mainly because they never took themselves seriously in the first place. They didn't start the whole 'subtext' thing, and they didn't cash in on it, they just left a few ambigious lines in.

      And I suspect there would have been rather more revealing costumes. Have you ever looked at what Xena wore? It's like three layers of clothing! She's wearing a leather shirt under her armor, and she's wearing a cloth shirt under that!

      Gabby, admittedly, had some rather nice outfits after she stopped wearing a full-length skirt the whole time, but they weren't by any stretch of the imagination 'revealing', unless Jeannie on I Dream of Jeannie was past 'revealing' into 'nudity'.

      Anyway, Dark Angel was an absurd attempt by Fox to cash in on Buffy by throwing money, tits, and asses at the viewers. (Buffy was owned by Fox, but the WB was making all the money.)

      Buffy, of course, only was given a chance because of Xena.

      That chance of logic is probably the only time Dark Angel and Xena should be mentioned anywhere near each other.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    5. Re:now... by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      I can't think of more obvious way to come out to the world as gay than to say that ANYTHING with Jessica Alba in it is boring.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    6. Re:now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a dick. Jessica Alba is WAY hotter than Lucy Lawless. Shit, man, when was the last time you saw Lucy Lawless in a movie? (And I DON'T mean a TV movie)

    7. Re:now... by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      Exactly where in that entire post did I even vaguely suggest Lucy Lawless was the slightest bit hot?

      Exactly where in that entire post did I even vaguely suggest Jessica Alba wasn't the hottest person in the entire history of the universe?

      Not that I personally believe those things, but I'm just wondering where, at any point, I made any comment on how hot any actress was. The closest I came to calling anyone 'hot' was to compliment Gabrielle's outfits, which actually sounds rather gay now that I reread it. :)

      And Jessica Alba, does, indeed, keep appearing in movies because she is very hot. Often in revealing outfits to show off her hotness, or even lacking traditional parts of an outfit, like a shirt.

      Whether or not this is a good thing depends, I suppose, on whether or not people are aware they can buy magazines filled entirely with pictures of completely-naked hot women. And movies with that, too. It is called 'pornography'.

      Once they are aware of this, they will usually stop watching movies due solely due to the half-naked hot women in them (What's the point of half-naked when you can see entirely naked women?), and start expecting the women to have 'acting ability' and the movie to have 'a plot'.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  28. re-premier??? by advocate_one · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
  29. Correct for Slashdot by The+Angry+Artist · · Score: 1

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

    Does this mean he's a walking Wikipedia?

    --
    If you're reading this, stop it.
    1. Re:Correct for Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

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

    2. Re:Correct for Slashdot by bert.cl · · Score: 2, Funny
      Yes^H^H^HNo^H^HYes^H^HNo^H^HWikipedia is goatse!^H^H^H^HYes^H^HNo^H^HThis Page is a stub

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

    3. Re:Correct for Slashdot by Gryle · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
    4. Re:Correct for Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, everything he knows is actually true.

  30. Paradox? by aaron_ds · · Score: 1

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

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

    I smell a paradox.

  31. you forgot by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

    1. Re:you forgot by brian0918 · · Score: 1

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

  32. Re:SCI-FI channel sucks bad. I quit watching it ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    thanks ziggy.

  33. 9pm ET ? by rossdee · · Score: 1

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

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

    1. Re:9pm ET ? by JimiSpier · · Score: 0

      Indeed my fellow gater, ya don't mess with SG1 or Atlantis.. That is punishable by death or dismemberment..

      --
      Jimi Spier
      www.jimispier.com - My tunes
    2. Re:9pm ET ? by rsmith-mac · · Score: 1

      Ya, they're actually replacing Firefly with it, not anything from the core SciFi Friday lineup. They will however be moving things around apparently when Doctor Who hits SciFi in March.

  34. Sci-Fi Channel, R.I.P. by dada21 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think we need to see this one go away.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    1. Re:Sci-Fi Channel, R.I.P. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    2. Re:Sci-Fi Channel, R.I.P. by BushCheney08 · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not that nobody won't. It's that nobody legally can. Fox owns the rights to television shows based on Firefly. That's why another company (Universal) was able to make it into a movie -- because it wasn't a TV show. If Firefly ever returns to the small screen it will be because Fox decided to do it (or they sold the rights to it).

      --
      Be a real patriot: Question authority. Think for yourself. Formulate your own conclusions.
    3. Re:Sci-Fi Channel, R.I.P. by canavan · · Score: 2, Informative

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

      I'd say that's just barely 30 episodes of some shows. Futurama averages at about US$1.5 Million per episode.

    4. Re:Sci-Fi Channel, R.I.P. by Bemopolis · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm in -- on two conditions:
      1. On every show there is a character named "Brannon Braga" who is horribly mutilated in the first five minutes of the show.
      2. On every show there is a machine capable of raising the dead, so we can revive "Brannon Braga" for the next episode.

      Bemopolis

      --
      "I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
    5. Re:Sci-Fi Channel, R.I.P. by Kjella · · Score: 1

      So the answer is where should we go next? I'd love to see viewer funded "television" -- maybe geek television at its finest.

      There's a few reason it not likely to work:
      a) The waiting game - you wait for everyone else to pay
      b) Lead time and cost - you can't simply set up a few episodes with cast, crew, location, props and everything else for a few episodes, except at an outragous cost. You need to have secured funding for at least half a season.
      c) Lead time and continuity - actors will disappear if there are gaps in the funding. You can't simply turn it on and off if the cashflow is only enough to do a part-time show or worse one episode now and then. Poor job security doesn't begin to describe it.
      d) Who's going to well, do it? Putting together a proposal isn't going to be just to throw up a guesstimate and letting people donate, you need to pull together a fairly accurate cast and budget to make people donate. That means a lot of work which is unlikely to be paid by anyone, since most proposals will fail.
      e) For previously produced/televisioned shows, how many catches are there attached? I doubt you can do it without the original production company getting their cut. Are things licenses for Internet download? Is it restricted by the network contract? There's tons of things like that.

      A TV series has very many characteristics of a computer game, you make it, it has its run and it's gone. As you might have noticed, open source games haven't exactly been a huge hit. I don't think this kind of "community-sponsored" TV shows will either.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    6. Re:Sci-Fi Channel, R.I.P. by ejp1082 · · Score: 1

      Stan: "Oh my god, they killed Brannon!"
      Kyle: "You rock!"

    7. Re:Sci-Fi Channel, R.I.P. by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      I think we need to see this one go away.

      Some would say the Sci-Fi Channel died when they showed Braveheart.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  35. John Doe is a pretty generic term... by hackwrench · · Score: 2, Informative

    and I don't know what the producer's name is.

    Fortunately, Wikipedia to the rescue:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Doe_(TV_series)

  36. Lemon Curry? by absurdist · · Score: 1

    even bring back Monty Python with a newer funnier cast

    BLASPHEMER!!!

    1. Re:Lemon Curry? by dada21 · · Score: 1

      I knew that would get someone's attention!

    2. Re:Lemon Curry? by thunderbee · · Score: 2, Insightful

      BLASPHEMER!!!

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

      --
      In my opinion, Scientology is a cult you should avoid.
  37. MONSTER in my pants by Darthmalt · · Score: 1

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

  38. They're not making the movies... by KingSkippus · · Score: 1

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

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

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

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

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

    1. Re:They're not making the movies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    2. Re:They're not making the movies... by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      The reason they film them with curse words is probably so they can sell them (with a higher rating) on the DVD market after they're aired. Some of the movies are actually somewhat clever and entertaining... some of them are complete dreck. (Like http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0435617/ in which every line of dialog is a cliche, or http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120331/ which is based entirely on bad science-- waves pass *through* each other, idiots, they don't cancel each other out!)

      What's more amazing to me is how they get actors like Dean Cain and John Rhys-Davies in these movies. (I mean, come on Dean, you played *Superman!* You can do better than this!)

  39. Fox Reveals Doe's Secret (spoiler!) by mwyner · · Score: 2, Informative

    I read about this a couple of months ago, and never knew it about the time. Apparently after the got cancelled, they revealed what was going to happen: http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue326/news.html

    1. Re:Fox Reveals Doe's Secret (spoiler!) by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      Fox didn't reveal it, Gail Berman did. And you can bet the bitch/cunt/whore did it out of spite, probably after it was revealed that the show was going to be sold to SciFi. She has a reputation in the business for poisoning everything she touches, but knows where so many bodies are buried that nobody dares to take her down. She is personally attributed with killing at least a half-dozen shows because she hated one or more of the women on those shows - not because of some personal conflict, but simply because they were beautiful, popular, and the talk of the office. One of those shows is "Dark Angel", for those who are wondering, which was doing well enough ratings-wise to continue but became one of her personal crusades of vindictiveness because the effect that Jessica Alba had on her male co-slime enraged her. She so despised Ms. Alba she didn't even bother trying to be subtle about it, telling quite a few people that she was going to torpedo the show just because she couldn't stand Ms. Alba.

      Gail Berman has a rep in the business, and none of it is good. She's the worst thing to ever happen to Fox, and if she didn't have so much blackmail material she'd've been shit-canned years ago. But that's how things work in TV and movie-land; the quality of a show rarely has anything to do with whether it lives or dies. Berman will be around until the day she dies, which, if the way she treats her staff is any indication, will probably be due to something other than natural causes.

      Here's hoping she gets hit by a bus. And soon.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
  40. Farscape had closure. by mosel-saar-ruwer · · Score: 1

    I wish they would bring back Farscape.

    For what purpose?

    <SPOILER ALERT>

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

    </SPOILER ALERT>

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

    1. Re:Farscape had closure. by 21st+Century+Peon · · Score: 1

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

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

      --
      "Knowledge, sir, should be free to all!"
      ~Harcourt Fenton Mudd
    2. Re:Farscape had closure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So what would they do as a follow-up?

      Aeryn Sun breastfeeding. I'll let SciFi know where they can send my check.

    3. Re:Farscape had closure. by kryten_nl · · Score: 1

      Introduce Crichton to his longlost-twin and tell him where they got this wormhole technology in the first place????

      --
      For the perfect anti-Unix, write an OS that thinks it knows what you're doing better than you do and let it be wrong.
  41. Same guy on Prison Break by SiliconEntity · · Score: 1

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

  42. pretender by chigun · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    --
    swanker than you
  43. Sci-Fi, don't pick that up! by EnsilZah · · Score: 1

    You don't know where it's been.

  44. Re:SCI-FI channel sucks bad. I quit watching it ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    Have a nice day.

  45. Oh, that painful first episode... by dmorin · · Score: 3, Informative
    Scene : John Doe, having just realized his "powers", is in some sort of mall taking questions from strangers.

    Doe: "....010111010101101..1011."

    Stranger: "Wow....he actually knows the assembly code for DOS."

    Or something like that. But it did actually get good, especially as it progressed toward the eventual cliffhanger that others have mentioned. If SciFi channel has ordered new episodes I'd be thrilled, but I don't think they have.

  46. Gun v. lightbulb by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 1

    No, it is gun v. electicity .... electricity wins.

  47. firefly by goarilla · · Score: 1

    Firefly is awesome
    Seriously there should have been more seasons!
    so everybody with money buy the dvd's so the show can continue

    1. Re:firefly by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      Joss already said the series is dead.

    2. Re:firefly by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      I'm inclined to agree with him. AFAIC, "Firefly" died with ebg13cnqqvat-jnfu-ebg13cnqqvat.

    3. Re:firefly by goarilla · · Score: 1

      Never say never; just look at futurama.
      on the extras on the dvd joss is kinda pointing out that his dream would
      be to make a full lenght tv series out of it if fox hadn't cancelled the show

      Anyway we can still hope and maybe ...

    4. Re:firefly by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Joss likes to kill off the good characters. He killed the wrong dude off this time.

  48. Re:Cliffhanger has been explained (spoiler) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why no one else brought this I don't know, but the finale cliffhanger has been explained by one of the show producers, google for it for details.

    john knows everything because he was supposed to die (God's will, etc.), but something went wrong and he simply did not. the explanation is that when you're supposed to be reincarnated, in between a dead-and-reborn very short interval, all the knowledge of everything in the universe is available for the soul, and when you get reborn, it just "resets" : john reached this time interval but came back to life with that universal knowledge, that's why he's called as the Phoenix by the "bad guys" who are mystical/religious freaks.

  49. Re:STFU by Millenniumman · · Score: 1

    That post was made with an automatic complaint generator .

    --
    Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
  50. This is why... by metamatic · · Score: 1

    I now don't watch anything with a continuing plot on FOX until it makes it to season 2, at which point I start watching at season 1.

    There was a time when they'd give shows time to find an audience, but now they just bounce them around the schedules, show them 10 minutes late so your TiVo misses the end, and randomly cancel episodes in favor of two guys talking about whatever sporting event just happened.

    And they wonder why people download torrents instead...

    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  51. And he started in Crossroads by DanAndDusty · · Score: 1

    OMG.. I just looked up his show list in IMDB. 128 items listed.. Some acceptable.. Some completed dross... But then.. His earliest item was Crossroads (OK.. only the brits will know this one..)

    A very dodgy soap 1964-1988.. Resurected briefly a couple of years ago I believe. The only thing I can remember from this was Benny with his bobble hat and his "Miss Dianne" comments.

    Believe me... Anything he has done since has gotta be a BIIIG step up from this....

    1. Re:And he started in Crossroads by Forkenhoppen · · Score: 1

      John Rhys-Davies? Heheh.. I'll always remember him as the guy from Sliders, but heck if I'll never forget his appearances in the Wing Commander games.

      Heh. I'll never forget 'cause it was on the box. Not because it was particularly memorable. Sad how I actually went out and bought Wing Commander IV, but then never ended up playing it..

  52. Not a very good show by teslatug · · Score: 1

    The show had some promisse, but they really needed a smart person to help out the writers. There were so many logical inconsistencies that it made watching the show difficult. Of course they could easily explain it through some convoluted logic at the end, but it doesn't make it any easier to watch.

  53. Bring back Coronet Blue!!! by unitron · · Score: 1
    Bring back Coronet Blue!!!

    And be snappy about it. Frank Converse ain't gonna live forever, you know.

    --

    I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  54. What?! by Aero+Leviathan · · Score: 2, Funny

    And... unlike... unlike what? WHAT HAPPENED? This post was cancelled? That's BULLSHIT! It was just starting to get good! DAMN YOU SLASHDOT!

    --
    ~ Aero
  55. They did... by schon · · Score: 2, Funny

    I wish they would bring back Farscape.

    They did, only they dropped the muppets, and renamed it Fargate SG-1.

  56. This is why we buy Star Wars merchandise... by Matarick · · Score: 1

    So we can see giant planes flying around and Jedi slashing heads off of robots. We wanted 3 more Star Wars films because LucasFilm sells oodles of merchandise and thus funded George Lucas to create 3 more star Wars films.

    Since directly funding more Firefly seasons is highly unlikely, why not buy all of the Firefly comics, videos, merchandise, toys, candy holders, ecetera. The possible backfire is that the show would be a giant toy commercial (I doubt Joss Whedon would do something like that except in parody).

    In Japan there was a simular concept with the funding for two version of Tokimeki Memorial funded entirely by shareholders (please scroll down a little bit until you see a "February 26, 2004" headline). Shame that didn't go out well but I wonder if somebody has the stones to pull off this kind of project.

  57. Speaking of Cliffhangers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I want to see the conclusion of Pirates of Dark Water.

    Surely there's a pristine tape somewhere?

  58. Character spouting nonsense by antizeus · · Score: 1
    It's been a while since I watched that show, but it seemed like the beginning of every episode featured the John Doe character spouting a stream of nonsense which was apparently meant to make him seem knowledgeable, but in reality sounded ridiculous to anyone who wasn't completely ignorant.

    But then after the first few minutes, it would get a lot better. I wonder how many people switched channels during that scene.

    --
    -- $SIGNATURE
  59. Screw that... pick up THRESHOLD! by savorymedia · · Score: 1

    Since Threshold was given a bum shuffle on ABC and got cancelled, SciFi should pick it up and order new episodes. Surface is pretty good and Invasion is okay, but it pissed me off that Threshold got cancelled but Invastion got extended. Sick and sad.

    --
    1 is the square root of all evil.
  60. Perfect? Yech! by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 1

    Buffy's season seven was interminable self-parodying dreck. Yeah, it had its high points, but at that point Joss had moved on to other projects. The endings of seasons three and five were much better endpoints for the series. (Though I'll admit some fondness for the very, very down ending of season two.)

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
    1. Re:Perfect? Yech! by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Buffy's season seven was interminable self-parodying dreck.

      Whatever you think about season seven is of no import, fanboi. The fact is that the resolution regarding the future of "the slayer" was as clean and smart as any show has ever been resolved.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  61. Unless they destroyed it by KingSkippus · · Score: 2, Informative

    Unless they destroy it, like they did with Sliders. I used to like that show. I thought it was moderately intelligent and had a great premise. When the Sci Fi channel started making it, though, it got sooooo bad.

    I'd rather have no Firefly at all than have it become really bad. And that says a lot, because I really want more Firefly.

  62. John Doe renewal by Hiroki+Bushindo · · Score: 1

    Even though I know it may be a stretch, they could in fact manage to pull out a new show based on John Doe. We know he has no memory, we also know it's because of some sort of gov't coverup. He's currently on Prison Break as a death row inmate. What if Scoffield's ultimate plan to save his brother was to give him a pill that would make him appear to be dead but also allow him to survive the electric chair (sabotage the chair to not really deliver a lethal dose of electricity but since he appears dead it isn't caught). After he is executed and his body is sent off for burial, he's revived by a 3rd party and dumped in the woods thus beginning the series John Doe. Scoffield was supposed to pick him up, but somehow either he got sidetracked or the people delivering John Doe had to dump him randomly to avoid being detected. His memory loss could be a side effect of the pill and the death experience. This would allow both Prison Break and John Doe to continue as either sister series or be merged back into one (Prison Break being the prequel to John Doe). The cool part is that you'd have to end this season of Prison Break with my above scenario. The 2nd season of Prison Break would be Scoffield on the outside trying to find his brother and instead find more details about the conspiracy involving his brother and another group that wants him to stay alive. There would be near misses between the two brothers in every other episode (passing eachother on opposite sides of the street or even being in the same building at times). John could even see Scoffield off in the distance, but just doesn't remember him. You end this season to line up in conjunction with the events at the end of the 1st season of John Doe, but with the two brothers meeting face to face for the first time since Prison Break. The NEW season of John Doe would have the two brothers talking and Scoffield trying to fill John in on the details that he's missing. It would be a mission for both of them to try to recover John's memories and to find his son. With John having all that knowledge and Scoffield's pattern recognition abilities, you could squeak out a good season if there's good writers onboard.

  63. He's never been the same solo by mateub · · Score: 1

    At least they should negotiate to get Exene Cervenka to come on for a guest appearance occasionally...

    adéu,
    Mateu

    --
    "And we're happy here, but we live in fear, we've seen a lot of temples crumble..." - Concrete Blonde
  64. Apparently? by lbmouse · · Score: 1

    It's raining new shows on Sci-Fi, apparently.

    From the lineup, you'd have to say it's raining 'something' at the Sci-Fi channel that starts with "sh". They really need to start focusing on quality over quantity. I understand the theory of throwing a bunch of shit at the wall and seeing what sticks, but this is getting ridiculous.

  65. Re:Took a little suspension of disbelief, but not by pipingguy · · Score: 1


    The show has an ongoing storyline, which stars off kind of slow but takes a pretty wild turn late in the season.

    This is what is wrong with a lot of science fiction shows today; they are following the soap opera gotcha format. BG is a good example of this.

    Science fiction is supposed to challenge viewers' beliefs and make them think, not to rope them into some "story arc" or "backstory" (both are terms which, of course, are bandied-about by those who would like to be screenwriters someday).

    I imagine that people that gather and discuss the latest Battlestar Gallactica episode are talking about soap opera-like things, not ideas.

  66. Here's hoping by codefool · · Score: 1
    there will be enough interest to pull the show back into production, or at least a finale. The cliff hanger at the end of the first (and only) season was just cruel. Reminds me of that scene in Bedazzled (the original) where Satan tears the last page out of Agatha Christi novels.

    Dang you Fox TV! Dang you to heck! Oh, wait, House is pretty good, and 24. Ok, just dang you a little bit...

    --
    "Stop whining!" - Arnold, as Mr. Kimble