Mostly he was inspired by The Killer Savages, a book about the Battle of Gettysburg. [See his scifi.com interview.]
I doubt he took much from OLS. He's probably never seen it. He's said in interviews that he doesn't watch TV (because he's to busy making it) [See here for the quote. (Bottom of the page.)]
It has also been suggested that he took from Farscape and Andromeda--two other shows he's never seen.
Some of the things ScroP cites above are pretty common, in both sci-fi and westerns.
Space as the wild west was the basis for Star Trek, OLS, Cowboy Bebop, and any other space opera that treats space as a frontier.
Outlaws vs. the Law is everything from Reservoir Dogs to Ali Baba to Han Solo. Space is just a change of venue.
Character's running from a tragedy in their past? Thousands of people traveling west after the Civil War. It's a basic human motivation to escape our traumas.
Genius Kid on a space ship? Wesley Crusher. Space pilots with shady jobs? Han Solo again.
We're mostly talking about common archtypes.
Even shipping someone in a box isn't that new an idea. Star Trek did it in "The Emissary" and Bram Stoker shipped Dracula in a box of dirt.
It will be the details that will really display the strengths and differences between the two shows, and we won't see those until later this month.
does the notion of playing a game of simulating a terrorist attack seem sick?
Sick? How about "necessary". What's surprising to me is that it's so new. We should have been simulating terrorist attacks for years. I'm sure there are military programs that have thought about it, but I don't know how much has actually been done.
I think the darkness was a big part of the problem. Not because it was dark, but because there wasn't enough "light" to act as a contrast. In short, they took themselves too seriously. Which, I think, is why some of the stuff comes off like an after-school special. Those always took themselves much too seriously.
Some of the best serious moments in the show worked because there was humor tied to it. I would have killed for something like:
Xander: "I hate to sound like an after-school special, but you need help."
That would have lightened the trite nature of many addiction stories (and maybe that kind of attitude could have punched up the dialogue, which, I agree, was suffering from severe Afterschoolitis).
Unfortunately, the only character that ever really talked about the addiction in anything other than accusing tones was Willow. Even then, it was taken too seriously.
I didn't mind the "alternate universe" episode. My only issues with it were the continuity error (she was supposedly commited in the past, but it is never referenced in the early seasons when Buffy mentions vampires to her mother), and the end shot in the asylum. That shot was what made it cliche for me. It implied that maybe the institution was reality, which is the trap all those "alternate universe" plots seem unable to escape. They have to go for the Outer Limits predictable twist. (At least it was better written than most Outer Limits episodes.)
I actually like the finale (although I think they made two episodes out of one-and-a-half episodes). I thought it had a better emotional resonance than most "I love you" endings. I almost walked out of the Matrix when Trinity said it, but I was rooted when Xander did.
In all, Season 6 lacked the overall quality of previous seasons. Even the worst episode from any of the other seasons has nothing on "Doublemeat Palace" or the return of Riley. But the high points made up for it ("Dead Things" - where Buffy thinks she killed Warren's ex - made up for "Doublemeat Palace").
I have high hopes for season 7. To avoid being disappointed, I'm using the worst of season 6 as my basis for comparison. I'll wait until later to compare it to "The Body" or "Hush".
Most of the writing staff stayed the same. The big difference is that Joss Whedon had more projects and couldn't offer as much hands-on time to the show. Generally, the best stuff in a season is done by him.
I thought the season was pretty good, but it was below average. They let it get out of control with how dark it got, and the reduction in humor affected the overall emotional arc. A few episodes really damaged the season (the return of Riley, and the "Doublemeat Palace" being the most notable). I'm a big fan of dark stories, but the season hit that feeling too much, without letting up. This is something the writers realized in hindsight:
Early on, the moderator asked Joss 'what do you say to people's criticism that this season was too depressing, too dark?'
Joss thinks for a minute, then responds, "Oops?" Which I loved!
Marti then jumped in to talk about how while they knew they wanted to have the evil Willow storyline, and they wanted the season to be about facing the real world without the safety net of parents/living at home, and they also wanted to show how some relationships (Buffy/Spike) can be unhealthy, they didn't quite realize that they were going to wind up doing it all together and how that would come across (namely dark and extremely depressing). At one point Joss joked 'Yeah, next season we're going to advertise it as: Watch Buffy this season! Not every character wants to die!'
Source [Slipstream BBS: Pt. 6 of jillandr's report]
It was nominated for an Emmy for writing in 2000. It has to be pretty good to be nominated with the West Wing and the Sopranos (and those were the only three dramas nominated for writing that year).
I would also like to see something other than "story arc," but only because I don't like the phrases "story line" or "story arc". Both of them suggest that there is only one story. With most shows there are many stories.
However, I believe people prefer arc because it implies a rising action, where a line suggests that the story is flat. I remember in high school English when they would talk about story structure, and they would draw a line that had a positive slope until it hit the climax of the story. Then, it would begin dropping as the story "wrapped-up." An arc has a similar rise and fall, but with a curve.
Actually, Mars is substantially smaller than Earth (its gravity is.38 compared to Earth's 1). This is theorized to be why Mars has such a thin atmosphere: it's gravity wasn't great enough to hold an atmosphere. This is also why trying this with the entire planet probably won't work. The way the article reads suggests this is for breathing devices and not terraforming.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd expect the hundred-dollar-hammer and similar stories probably have similar truths behind them.
Yes, it does:
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1298/120798t1.htm
I believe it was originally called "Total Information Awareness" and the changed it, after some bad publicity, to "Terrorist Information Awareness".
See http://www.epic.org/privacy/profiling/tia/
As a resident of Montana, I can tell you that law lasted less than a year. We have actual speed limits now.
Mostly he was inspired by The Killer Savages, a book about the Battle of Gettysburg. [See his scifi.com interview.]
I doubt he took much from OLS. He's probably never seen it. He's said in interviews that he doesn't watch TV (because he's to busy making it) [See here for the quote. (Bottom of the page.)]
It has also been suggested that he took from Farscape and Andromeda--two other shows he's never seen.
Some of the things ScroP cites above are pretty common, in both sci-fi and westerns.
Space as the wild west was the basis for Star Trek, OLS, Cowboy Bebop, and any other space opera that treats space as a frontier.
Outlaws vs. the Law is everything from Reservoir Dogs to Ali Baba to Han Solo. Space is just a change of venue.
Character's running from a tragedy in their past? Thousands of people traveling west after the Civil War. It's a basic human motivation to escape our traumas.
Genius Kid on a space ship? Wesley Crusher.
Space pilots with shady jobs? Han Solo again.
We're mostly talking about common archtypes.
Even shipping someone in a box isn't that new an idea. Star Trek did it in "The Emissary" and Bram Stoker shipped Dracula in a box of dirt.
It will be the details that will really display the strengths and differences between the two shows, and we won't see those until later this month.
In what way does it appear to be a rip-off?
does the notion of playing a game of simulating a terrorist attack seem sick?
Sick? How about "necessary". What's surprising to me is that it's so new. We should have been simulating terrorist attacks for years. I'm sure there are military programs that have thought about it, but I don't know how much has actually been done.
I think the darkness was a big part of the problem. Not because it was dark, but because there wasn't enough "light" to act as a contrast. In short, they took themselves too seriously. Which, I think, is why some of the stuff comes off like an after-school special. Those always took themselves much too seriously.
Some of the best serious moments in the show worked because there was humor tied to it. I would have killed for something like:
Xander: "I hate to sound like an after-school special, but you need help."
That would have lightened the trite nature of many addiction stories (and maybe that kind of attitude could have punched up the dialogue, which, I agree, was suffering from severe Afterschoolitis).
Unfortunately, the only character that ever really talked about the addiction in anything other than accusing tones was Willow. Even then, it was taken too seriously.
I didn't mind the "alternate universe" episode. My only issues with it were the continuity error (she was supposedly commited in the past, but it is never referenced in the early seasons when Buffy mentions vampires to her mother), and the end shot in the asylum. That shot was what made it cliche for me. It implied that maybe the institution was reality, which is the trap all those "alternate universe" plots seem unable to escape. They have to go for the Outer Limits predictable twist. (At least it was better written than most Outer Limits episodes.)
I actually like the finale (although I think they made two episodes out of one-and-a-half episodes). I thought it had a better emotional resonance than most "I love you" endings. I almost walked out of the Matrix when Trinity said it, but I was rooted when Xander did.
In all, Season 6 lacked the overall quality of previous seasons. Even the worst episode from any of the other seasons has nothing on "Doublemeat Palace" or the return of Riley. But the high points made up for it ("Dead Things" - where Buffy thinks she killed Warren's ex - made up for "Doublemeat Palace").
I have high hopes for season 7. To avoid being disappointed, I'm using the worst of season 6 as my basis for comparison. I'll wait until later to compare it to "The Body" or "Hush".
Most of the writing staff stayed the same. The big difference is that Joss Whedon had more projects and couldn't offer as much hands-on time to the show. Generally, the best stuff in a season is done by him.
I thought the season was pretty good, but it was below average. They let it get out of control with how dark it got, and the reduction in humor affected the overall emotional arc. A few episodes really damaged the season (the return of Riley, and the "Doublemeat Palace" being the most notable). I'm a big fan of dark stories, but the season hit that feeling too much, without letting up. This is something the writers realized in hindsight:
Early on, the moderator asked Joss 'what do you say to people's criticism that this season was too depressing, too dark?'
Joss thinks for a minute, then responds, "Oops?" Which I loved!
Marti then jumped in to talk about how while they knew they wanted to have the evil Willow storyline, and they wanted the season to be about facing the real world without the safety net of parents/living at home, and they also wanted to show how some relationships (Buffy/Spike) can be unhealthy, they didn't quite realize that they were going to wind up doing it all together and how that would come across (namely dark and extremely depressing). At one point Joss joked 'Yeah, next season we're going to advertise it as: Watch Buffy this season! Not every character wants to die!'
Source [Slipstream BBS: Pt. 6 of jillandr's report]
Hopefully that realization will help next season.
with the show's nine nominations to date (with no wins) being mostly in technical categories.
It won for Make-up and Music Composition in 1998.
It was nominated for an Emmy for writing in 2000. It has to be pretty good to be nominated with the West Wing and the Sopranos (and those were the only three dramas nominated for writing that year).
I would also like to see something other than "story arc," but only because I don't like the phrases "story line" or "story arc". Both of them suggest that there is only one story. With most shows there are many stories.
However, I believe people prefer arc because it implies a rising action, where a line suggests that the story is flat. I remember in high school English when they would talk about story structure, and they would draw a line that had a positive slope until it hit the climax of the story. Then, it would begin dropping as the story "wrapped-up." An arc has a similar rise and fall, but with a curve.
Actually, Mars is substantially smaller than Earth (its gravity is .38 compared to Earth's 1). This is theorized to be why Mars has such a thin atmosphere: it's gravity wasn't great enough to hold an atmosphere. This is also why trying this with the entire planet probably won't work. The way the article reads suggests this is for breathing devices and not terraforming.