Slashdot Mirror
Sarah Connor Chronicles — Why It Died
brumgrunt writes "Sarah Connor was a non-populist, meditative, complex piece of television on a smash-bang, show-me-the-ratings kind of network. The two were never going to get on. Plus: how the Terminator name proved more hindrance than aid."
... you're a fanboy, aren't you?
Not enough scenes of Summer Glau in a wet t-shirt.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Oh, you mean dull. Or as Homer Simpson would say:
B-o-o-r-i-n-n-g.
My blog
A simpler explanation is that this show was just another attempt to increase the profits of the terminator franchise. I suspect that given the number of people involved, and the number of people that had to be paid off to gain the rights to the characters, ideas, and franchise made the show too expensive. p It seems to me that the same show could have been made with new characters at a lower cost. I am sure the network thought the fact that this was terminator meant that more people would watch it and they would recover the additional costs. Obviously they were wrong.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
She's that woman your PC searches for with its free cycles.
This.
Jewel Staite is hot...
Never did watch this Terminator series. To be honest I'm getting bored of the whole series model. The idea these days seems to be to start off as many subplots as possible and then take care never to resolve anything so that there's always room for another season. Then you string it out for as long as you can until you get cancelled. If you're lucky you get a really rushed ending in two episodes that clumsily attempts to tie up the storyline. Quite often not though.
Oh, that must be Maria Ozawa's real name, then.
Which is to say, "Elitist, Slow-Moving, Muddled."
Never watched the show, but thanks for the tip; you've told me all I need to know to stay away from the torrents and DVDs.
I think more to the point it was none of those things. He's using the terms to rationalize why the show was canceled. Basically saying the show was too good for FOX and that's what FOX canceled it but if it was on another network, it would have lived on...honestly, no, because it SUCKED!
Bottom line: another Logon's Run.
It'll be back.
Movie 1. Robot from the future comes back in time to kill someone but another human is also sent back in time to try to save them.
Movie 2. See 1 but there is another robot sent back instead of a human.
Movie 3. See 2.
TV series, see 3.
Will the killer robot kill the hero this week? Will the hero robot kill the killer robot this week? And the plot never changes. The killer robot doesn't take out the rest of humanity. It doesn't even try to kill his grandparents. Great-grandparents. Etc.
Quite.
I wasn't always a fan of Babylon 5, but you have to admire the coherency of the plot. Straczynski designed the plot for the first 4 seasons before he even started making the first. He even made forward references to future seasons in the first.
Place this in stark contrast to Lost, where it's clear that there is no long term game plan and they're just trying to keep people guessing for as long as possible. What's the point in guessing if there isn't, and never has been, an answer?
Anyone who actually watched the show would know the plot was not like that.
It wasn't some Kung-Fu the Legend Continues. It had a very complex plot with many main characters. Outstanding writing, acting, suspense, and plot development made this the best show on television.
Cliff: Well ya see, Norm, it's like this. A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That's why you always feel smarter after a few beers.
Exactly, the sequel should have been a robot going after the Great Great Great Grandad in the Wild West, or Industrial Revolution era Northern England.
Hmm... It's kinda hard to compare a cutie who can tear a spaceship apart & put it back together, then have a beer with the guys and laugh at stupid jokes, all the while being so frickin' adorable you just want to buy her a pony or something - and a super-killer-tough-chick who seems to have been born with an axe in one hand and a gun in the other. Two different worlds, man, two worlds.
...Summer Glau does need a sandwich, though.
P.S. If you haven't watched "Firefly" / "Serenity" yet, you're missing the best show that was ever on Sci-Fi. Srsly. It's so good that fans bought advertising at their own expense.
I'm not sure why this got marked as 'troll'. He's absolutely right. I love me some sci fi TV, but this show was best watched in Fast Forward on my DVR.
It wasn't complex. It wasn't meditative. It wasn't non-populist either. It was crappy, though.
Just because something has a shoddy storyline that barely pieces together doesn't mean that it's complex or meditative.
Blessed be he who reads this post, Cursed be he who tells my boss.
Do you not remember television from 10 and 20 years ago? I grew up watching a lot of TV. When I try to watch a rerun of Knight Rider, Different Strokes, Dukes of Hazzard, Three's Company, or just about anything else I used to like, I can barely believe that these shows were actually successful.
Cripes, TV today is waaaay better than it has ever been. Yes, there is a lot of crap out there and some if it is very popular (and thus profitable), but I wouldn't write TV off just yet.
I wasn't always a fan of Babylon 5, but you have to admire the coherency of the plot. Straczynski designed the plot for the first 4 seasons before he even started making the first.
He actually had the main plot threads laid out for all five seasons several years before the show started filming. The uncertainty of the show being picked up for a fifth season forced him to rush the end of the fourth season a bit, so he had to fill in a few episodes for the fifth season. If I remember correctly, the fourth season was supposed to end with what became episode 17 or 18, so most of the fifth season was part of the original plan.
Frasier? Seriously? You're blaming the end of Frasier on reality TV? Really? It didn't have anything to do with the fact that the show had an ELEVEN year run? It wasn't about the fact that the show ran its course, as all shows do? It died because of reality TV? Seriously?
I understand your basic point and actually agree with it in large part. Reality TV has changed the way networks view TV but to say that a show which had an exceptionally long run on TV ended because of reality TV rather than it just being the natural course of things is actually hurting your point rather than reinforcing it.
And none of them mattered.
Once the killer robot gets a head shot on the boy (he's dead, no chance of resuscitation) the show is over. The "very complex plot with many main characters" collapses because there is nothing else to carry it.
A well written series would not have that flaw.
I Am Not Your Average Under Age Fuck Buddy?
What that tells me about Lost is that they do a good job of managing their prop inventory.
I think it is likely they just mine earlier episodes for visual and (ahem) "plot" elements and then drop a subsequent reference or explanation to them in later. No foresight or planning required.