How about some figures/links to back that up? I'm not saying that it's not the case, just that as stated it's no more convincing than the OP.
I loathed responding to this, because critical thinking skills are still required to realize the truth.
They've already recouped their production costs in broadcast advertising.
I can't help you if you can't understand this concept. If a TV show doesn't make money for a TV network, they eventually kill the show. The only exception to this is NFL games for a network, or a cable network that will prolong a critically acclaimed show in order to secure visibility.
If you think their manufacturing and distribution costs are $22 per box, you're truly clueless
According to the DVD FAQ, the cost of pre-production for a two-hour movie is roughly $20K. That cost is spread across every DVD box set you manage to sell. Even presuming that rate is maintained through for a TV series (no way, the original mastered media was already formatted for TV), that translates to $166/minute. A complete TV season of Buffy (22 eps * 43 mins * 166) could be calculated to cost $157036 to preproduce. (And then its $1/disk to create the disk.) If you were to pretend that a TV production company would put out a box set and only expect to sell 10K units, that would get you a production cost of $22/box.
No, according to TV Guide, "While the biggest hit movies on DVD can sell in the millions, a TV series just has to do a few hundred thousand units to be successful -- a fraction of the audience for a moderately successful prime-time show. The biggest sellers -- Seinfeld, The Simpsons, Family Guy and Chappelle's Show -- are in the 2 million range." So, its more like USD $7.50 to manufacture a box set. I don't have references to generalize "distribution costs" (that would have to vary by residuals arrangements, packaging, and advertising strategy), but its not going to come close to $22/box. That might have prompted an actor for Babylon 5 to muse,
"If they want to do 20 years of Babylon 5, they recoup their entire production cost just one box set run of DVDs." That's certain to be an exaggeration, but certainly the idea is there that the DVD income helps immensely.
These companies are making a killing on DVD sets; the profit margin is unreal. And that's why I disagreed with the original poster's sentiments that these companies can't reduce the price on a $60 box set.
They've already recouped their production costs in broadcast advertising. If you think their manufacturing and distribution costs are $22 per box, you're truly clueless.
And boy, I'm resentful with they charge almost as much for Buffy Season 1 (12 eps) as they do with following seasons. That, and no DVD of Cupid (1997) box set.
"My first calculator", indeed. What kind of retarded parent would want their pre-adolescent children own a calculator?!?! How are they going to build and reinforce their math skills with that crutch?
I report all phishing attempts my mailbox recieves to the FBI. I usually go to the trouble of looking up the network provider, server latitude & longitude, the DNS server, and the domain information. Haven't seen one in months.
Apologies. It wasn't my intention to portray you as supporting something you didn't. Whining about administrators enforcing censorship struck me as someone who would support the other crap.
Using your rationalizations, I'd go Suse. Owned by a major corporation (Novell), provides support contracts, and once linux is the standard platform for their Netware services, you'll have better management software for your enterprise networks.
Gentoo does not protect you from inadequate levels of competency. Other distributions are more incompetent friendly. You should not discount the possibility that other administrators of unequal experience or talent need to do their jobs on those machines.
My problem with Gentoo is that with genius comes inordinate hubris and laziness. I am required to do less when I use other distributions.
(To the humor impaired: yes, this is a sardonic post.)
Unfortunately, for me, it didn't end when I was in college. Being a conservative, any proof I offered, was dismissed and ridiculed and my grades suffered in comparison.
Typical whining conservative, blaming the liberals for their failures. No one forced you to go to the particular college you paid money to attend. There are tons of quality, "conservative" colleges, from "University of Chicago", to Yale, to Cornell, to SUNY Binghamton. Its your own damn fault you didn't properly examine the college you attended. Or your parents fault, for not educating that you could be penalized for what you publicly "proved".
How can we teach kids about 1st amendment freedoms when principals have 100% editorial control over school papers?
Lets see. You want public school education to improve but you do not want administrators to have the power to fire underperforming teachers, or use standardized testing to evaluate student achievement in education, and foster the lie that the establishment bestows and protects 1st amendment freedoms.
Sorry. I think capitalism should be abolished and replaced with a meritocracy and a gov't that acts as an environmental advocate, but childish wishful thinking is not a sign of a mature mind, capable of making realistic assessments.
I have zero problems with principals having 100% editorial control over the school paper. It closely reflects today's reality, where a few mega corporations control the country's papers.
When I was going to public school, back in the late '70's, a similar "crisis" came about. The school permitted the use of the intercom in the morning as a "morning radio" station, and would pipe in popular music selected by the student DJ. One day, he started playing Pink Floyd's "Brick in the Wall". The principal felt this undermined the reputation of the "noble" educational mission, and banned its play. The poor DJ vocally protested this censorship, violated the ban, and eventually lost the morning slot. I felt strongly and sympathetically for him, but even I, as a teen, knew that the "noble intentions" of the educator was a lie. Primary school was a vehicle of propaganda, from history, societal morality, to american culture. Its no surprise the principal, wrapped in the flag and 1st amendment, would censor airplay of that song.
I'm not a supporter of using the public school to "lie" to students about how the real world works. You're whining, not addressing the problem. The "solution" is to encourage kids to blog and put up competing school newspapers as websites. If you want some form of gov't imprimateur to the practice, let the journalism teacher evaluate those websites for extra credit. That way, you instill the values of a "free" press, and still reflect the reality of our culture. (i.e. - Official organs spin through their teeth, and soon, you will have to go through lots of little guys for the truth.)
Let me guess, you have an investment opportunity for us in the real estate?
If peak oil is real, and has occurred already, property values will collapse. Fuel will become too expensive to support transportation in the suburbs. I'm not yammering about $5/gal, more like $50/gal.
And remember, you don't own the house until you pay off the mortgage.
No, Netscape used to charge money for their browser. They had to stop charging for their browser in response to M$ releasing IE v4 for free. It hit Netscape's income, which prevented it from aggressively market and develop their browser and web server products. This was Microsoft's intention.
I could easily see Microsoft putting in a takeover bid for AMD, thereby controlling both the hardware and the software.
Hardly. The only reason Microsoft ever went into hardware was to make available technology not readily available to the Intel market. (ie. the mouse, though I never understood what they hoped to accomplish in making keyboards.) Steve B. is no more likely to buy AMD than Warren Buffet will invest heavy in a technology company. Buying AMD would set off anti-trust alarm klaxons throughout the USG. Granted, GWB is monopoly friendly, but nobody likes the noveau riche, and its all about maintaining power.
Alternatively, now that Oracle has bought Peoplesoft, Oracle is vulnerable.
A little more likely target, but not really. So what if Oracle has less cash to defend a takeover? Microsoft taking over Oracle would kill M$'s cash reserves. And Oracle is hardly a prized plum. It experiences heavy competition from SAP and IBM, and its growth and earnings has been flat.
M$ would not make an internet backbone play, because growth is dead and it doesn't enhance its product dominance. Everyone knows that the value of Internet is now with content/services, and M$ had to make a retreat from that recently. I can't see M$ taking over Boeing either. How does Boeing's engineering technology enhance M$ products? Boeing is in a competitive market with little growth opportunities. Wifi? Its an open standard. Forget about it. M$ history of acquisitions has been only for items that threaten its market, or enhance its products. Its always been when its a cheap pickup, otherwise M$ would reverse engineer the features it needs from scratch.
Finally, Microsoft could buy a hard drive vendor. If the OS came pre-installed on the hard drive to OEMs, then fewer OEMs would be willing to install rival Operating Systems....
Stupid. Will never happen. Hard drives are a financial loss leader and hypercompetitive. If they are going to mount an offensive against Linux, it will be with its patent lawyers.
It depends on the leadership and corporate mentality. I was most impressed with Microsoft's response to the Internet. They were big, flushed with the success of Windows 3.1 and NT, and initially laughed at the Internet and Netscape. Then one retreat Billy G. sits down and realizes "oh shit". Then he helps craft the strategy to respond to it. (Immerse windows with networking and Internet features, bury Netscape with a free browser.) The company changed priorities nearly overnight, and did the equivalent of a battleship doing an 180 degree turn.
No decrepit monopoly there. Its the legal actions that limits Microsoft's manoevering nowadays. (Interesting sidenote, there are hints that Google is revisiting the Netscape strategy of making Microsoft irrelevant...)
Satellites. Satellites are in space, right? And what could be more scientific than space.
That depends. Computers. Computers are used in space, right? Then almost all/. stories should be in science then, right?
It's like science fiction, but without the fiction, right? Isn't that science? Spaceships and stuff
Oh, now I get it. A satellite is a form of spaceship, except its doesn't convey anything in space. Spaceships are science fiction, so by linguistic reduction, that makes it science. How could I not see that?
What on earth does a potential commercial transaction between two companies specializing in transmission of audio entertainment through satellites have to do with science????
This has nothing to do with science; the collection of empirical data and experimental analysis to derive a physical truth.
Its not a merger between two science research centers or science periodicals. It doesn't affect transmission of data between science research centers. It doesn't even affect scientific research funding. This story should have been stuck into Politics or YRO.
I might just add that I appreciate the fact that you didn't deny the bit about being a wanker:P
Ah, a debate homo. "If I don't immediately contradict every stupid assertion you make, it must be true." You loser tool.
Incidentally, plastic surgeons like all the rest of us... "specialise". Thus this division of the Transform medical group. I would guess that those working within this division are making a living off "men who care how they look".
I have yet to hear of a single plastic surgeon who says "I only do plastic surgery on males". And if there are ten of them that do, that hardly means the hundreds of thousand plastic surgeons could make their living off of a male patient practice. Dredging up a web page hoping to attract more male customers is hardly proof these surgeons are making a living off of a male clientele, any more than advertising pet food over the internet helped pets.com financial solvency.
So: idiot!:P
Yes you are. Flawed reasoning, using irrelevant factoids to attack a statement I made in response to someone else's assertion only makes you look like a tool.
As for your penile implant factoids, they are also irrelevant. Yes, the majority of men would like larger penises, but that doesn't mean a significant percentage of them are getting penile implant surgery. The cosmetic surgery industry is not making their living from penile implants.
Which brings me to the last obvious part. Spammers are not a significant percentage of the advertising industry, and thus do not prove they reflect a relevant market demand. The fact that people are sent 1M emails about penile implants does not mean men represent a significant portion of the cosmetic surgery clientele. If the industry could make a living off of such services, they would be advertising penile implants on TV, radio, and periodicals (other than Hustler or a pr0n channel). You may be stupid enough to get a penile implant from something you read from email, but trying to argue some people make money from this by duping people like you, hardly proves there is a significant industry, or that you are not an idiot. It does support the impression that you are a tool.
And posting as an anonymous coward is proof you are one.
Fourteen percent of Botox injections, 15 per cent of all liposuction and eyelid surgeries, 20 per cent of laser hair removal, a quarter of all chin implants and 24 per cent of nose jobs are carried out on men.
So plastic surgeons don't need the income from the the 85% lipos, 80% hair removal, 75% of chin implants & nose jobs, because they are making a living from guys? Idiot.
The reason why you see so much crap advertising out there for that is because of frighteningly high levels of insecurity on just this topic.
No, cultural insecurity is not driving advertising for penile enlargment, its spam that is driving the increase in advertising. "Males must have an insecurity crisis about their penis size, because look at all this spam telling me there is a problem." Its like blaming WMD in Iraq for the invasion.
The previous poster was entirely correct - appealing to T & A makes stuff look like teen drivel. Now you don't mind this, because frankly teen drivel is what you're after...
...and you go whine to your life partner how entertainment caters to the hetero population, and how wonderful the federal gov't is to go after these sexually gratuitous references in entertainment shows like Howard Stern.
I get that way whenever someone suggests to remove T&A from a show I like, particularly from individuals who pick nicknames of particularly despicable characters.
Why then, do the makers feel inclined to pander to the lowest common denominator?
Because we like T & A. T & A is only objectionable when there is an absence of content. Content good. Content with T & A, perfect.
but it features implausibly large breasted spandex-clad women on the cover, do you not think that it would offend most females and those to whom substance is more important than style?
Does it? There is tons of T & A in Desperate Housewives, but I don't see men as the overwhelming demographic for that show. Guys aren't keeping Britney Spears concerts afloat. Plastic surgeons aren't making a living from guys wanting to augment their physical features.
Substance to the exclusion of style? Could The Avengers been as successful with a flat-chested Barbra Streisand as the female lead?
If we want geek culture to be taken seriously, we should show that we are above prurient drivel.
What geek wants their cultural icons to be taken seriously? Do you think I admire the headcase who wore a StarTrek uniform to court??? Or idiots who think one must have a manned reusable space shuttle in order to have an effective space research program? It the f**king general public that do not posess a geek sensibility that is screwing up good sci-fi. I say insist on quality fiction and stick in the T & A to keep the drooling idiots tuned in.
How much skin did Ivanova flash over the course of 5 seasons of B5? Was it any worse for it?
My feeling is that I would have had a much greater appreciation for B5 if Ivanova flashed more.
I've watched the first 12 episodes now and the only one of the regulars who's weak is the guy who plays Apollo.
Not fond of him, or the chick who plays Starbuck. When one is so butch, she's unattractive, then you might as well have casted a guy. Not seeing a female perspective from this Starbuck. Totally all over Boomer though...
BSG is first and foremost, a character-based drama.
No, I think its heavily plot driven. You have themes like religious fundamentalism, conspiracy/insurgency paranoia, the inhuman requirements of duty, father son conflicts, hetero manager subordinate conflicts, and politics. If it was foremost a character based drama, this show would have died on Apollo/Starbuck.
2. I think that B5 (and Farscape to a lesser extent) really showed that season-long story arcs work much better than the classic Trek planet-of-the-week format.
They both have their strengths and weaknesses. What is critical is great writing, followed by excellent acting.
The walking vagina life support system is driving the freaking Cylon plot. She is the one revealing the nature of the machines (as theological fundamentalists), keeping the humans alive by guiding Baltar, and the one with the heavy insights on everything.
Here's a life tip. You'd be in error to think your homosexual or pederast perspective reflects refined taste. You are not going to convince 93% of the male audience they don't want to look at spectacularly attractive women, nor the hetero TV execs who produce this show. Frankly, your inability to appreciate the underlying themes of this show as reflected through its female characters only makes me think you're an idiot. Espousing those views are only going to attract attention from homophobes or angry victims of child molestation. Go back to your Full House reruns and stay away from the sci-fi.
Some issue with the Battlestar Galactica remake. Having cute girls on the show is cool, but give them better roles than serving as eye candy, damnit.
Eye candy? You have Starbuck in almost every episode being a pivotal part of the action (and she is way too butch to be eye candy). You have Boomer driving major parts of the plot as Cylon saboteur head case. And the blonde Cylon babe is only eye candy? (I count at least twice she's driving the plot.) Hell, they even have a middle aged heifer as a major character. How many freaking shows do you see that?!?! What does BSG have to do, make their female characters recite Shakespeare??? Twit.
GR had to quit after the second season of TNG. He was dying of cancer. He was too sick to get involved with producing TNG. That was when Berman came in and when the show started to improve.
Slashdot Mirror
I loathed responding to this, because critical thinking skills are still required to realize the truth.
I can't help you if you can't understand this concept. If a TV show doesn't make money for a TV network, they eventually kill the show. The only exception to this is NFL games for a network, or a cable network that will prolong a critically acclaimed show in order to secure visibility.
According to the DVD FAQ, the cost of pre-production for a two-hour movie is roughly $20K. That cost is spread across every DVD box set you manage to sell. Even presuming that rate is maintained through for a TV series (no way, the original mastered media was already formatted for TV), that translates to $166/minute. A complete TV season of Buffy (22 eps * 43 mins * 166) could be calculated to cost $157036 to preproduce. (And then its $1/disk to create the disk.) If you were to pretend that a TV production company would put out a box set and only expect to sell 10K units, that would get you a production cost of $22/box.
No, according to TV Guide, "While the biggest hit movies on DVD can sell in the millions, a TV series just has to do a few hundred thousand units to be successful -- a fraction of the audience for a moderately successful prime-time show. The biggest sellers -- Seinfeld, The Simpsons, Family Guy and Chappelle's Show -- are in the 2 million range." So, its more like USD $7.50 to manufacture a box set. I don't have references to generalize "distribution costs" (that would have to vary by residuals arrangements, packaging, and advertising strategy), but its not going to come close to $22/box. That might have prompted an actor for Babylon 5 to muse, "If they want to do 20 years of Babylon 5, they recoup their entire production cost just one box set run of DVDs." That's certain to be an exaggeration, but certainly the idea is there that the DVD income helps immensely.
These companies are making a killing on DVD sets; the profit margin is unreal. And that's why I disagreed with the original poster's sentiments that these companies can't reduce the price on a $60 box set.
They've already recouped their production costs in broadcast advertising. If you think their manufacturing and distribution costs are $22 per box, you're truly clueless.
And boy, I'm resentful with they charge almost as much for Buffy Season 1 (12 eps) as they do with following seasons. That, and no DVD of Cupid (1997) box set.
"My first calculator", indeed. What kind of retarded parent would want their pre-adolescent children own a calculator?!?! How are they going to build and reinforce their math skills with that crutch?
I report all phishing attempts my mailbox recieves to the FBI. I usually go to the trouble of looking up the network provider, server latitude & longitude, the DNS server, and the domain information. Haven't seen one in months.
That is genius. Mebbe produce it like Team America: World Police. I wish I had mod points.
Apologies. It wasn't my intention to portray you as supporting something you didn't. Whining about administrators enforcing censorship struck me as someone who would support the other crap.
Using your rationalizations, I'd go Suse. Owned by a major corporation (Novell), provides support contracts, and once linux is the standard platform for their Netware services, you'll have better management software for your enterprise networks.
Gentoo does not protect you from inadequate levels of competency. Other distributions are more incompetent friendly. You should not discount the possibility that other administrators of unequal experience or talent need to do their jobs on those machines.
My problem with Gentoo is that with genius comes inordinate hubris and laziness. I am required to do less when I use other distributions.
(To the humor impaired: yes, this is a sardonic post.)
Typical whining conservative, blaming the liberals for their failures. No one forced you to go to the particular college you paid money to attend. There are tons of quality, "conservative" colleges, from "University of Chicago", to Yale, to Cornell, to SUNY Binghamton. Its your own damn fault you didn't properly examine the college you attended. Or your parents fault, for not educating that you could be penalized for what you publicly "proved".
Lets see. You want public school education to improve but you do not want administrators to have the power to fire underperforming teachers, or use standardized testing to evaluate student achievement in education, and foster the lie that the establishment bestows and protects 1st amendment freedoms.
Sorry. I think capitalism should be abolished and replaced with a meritocracy and a gov't that acts as an environmental advocate, but childish wishful thinking is not a sign of a mature mind, capable of making realistic assessments.
I have zero problems with principals having 100% editorial control over the school paper. It closely reflects today's reality, where a few mega corporations control the country's papers.
When I was going to public school, back in the late '70's, a similar "crisis" came about. The school permitted the use of the intercom in the morning as a "morning radio" station, and would pipe in popular music selected by the student DJ. One day, he started playing Pink Floyd's "Brick in the Wall". The principal felt this undermined the reputation of the "noble" educational mission, and banned its play. The poor DJ vocally protested this censorship, violated the ban, and eventually lost the morning slot. I felt strongly and sympathetically for him, but even I, as a teen, knew that the "noble intentions" of the educator was a lie. Primary school was a vehicle of propaganda, from history, societal morality, to american culture. Its no surprise the principal, wrapped in the flag and 1st amendment, would censor airplay of that song.
I'm not a supporter of using the public school to "lie" to students about how the real world works. You're whining, not addressing the problem. The "solution" is to encourage kids to blog and put up competing school newspapers as websites. If you want some form of gov't imprimateur to the practice, let the journalism teacher evaluate those websites for extra credit. That way, you instill the values of a "free" press, and still reflect the reality of our culture. (i.e. - Official organs spin through their teeth, and soon, you will have to go through lots of little guys for the truth.)
Let me guess, you have an investment opportunity for us in the real estate?
If peak oil is real, and has occurred already, property values will collapse. Fuel will become too expensive to support transportation in the suburbs. I'm not yammering about $5/gal, more like $50/gal.
And remember, you don't own the house until you pay off the mortgage.
No, Netscape used to charge money for their browser. They had to stop charging for their browser in response to M$ releasing IE v4 for free. It hit Netscape's income, which prevented it from aggressively market and develop their browser and web server products. This was Microsoft's intention.
Hardly. The only reason Microsoft ever went into hardware was to make available technology not readily available to the Intel market. (ie. the mouse, though I never understood what they hoped to accomplish in making keyboards.) Steve B. is no more likely to buy AMD than Warren Buffet will invest heavy in a technology company. Buying AMD would set off anti-trust alarm klaxons throughout the USG. Granted, GWB is monopoly friendly, but nobody likes the noveau riche, and its all about maintaining power.
A little more likely target, but not really. So what if Oracle has less cash to defend a takeover? Microsoft taking over Oracle would kill M$'s cash reserves. And Oracle is hardly a prized plum. It experiences heavy competition from SAP and IBM, and its growth and earnings has been flat.
M$ would not make an internet backbone play, because growth is dead and it doesn't enhance its product dominance. Everyone knows that the value of Internet is now with content/services, and M$ had to make a retreat from that recently. I can't see M$ taking over Boeing either. How does Boeing's engineering technology enhance M$ products? Boeing is in a competitive market with little growth opportunities. Wifi? Its an open standard. Forget about it. M$ history of acquisitions has been only for items that threaten its market, or enhance its products. Its always been when its a cheap pickup, otherwise M$ would reverse engineer the features it needs from scratch.
Stupid. Will never happen. Hard drives are a financial loss leader and hypercompetitive. If they are going to mount an offensive against Linux, it will be with its patent lawyers.
It depends on the leadership and corporate mentality. I was most impressed with Microsoft's response to the Internet. They were big, flushed with the success of Windows 3.1 and NT, and initially laughed at the Internet and Netscape. Then one retreat Billy G. sits down and realizes "oh shit". Then he helps craft the strategy to respond to it. (Immerse windows with networking and Internet features, bury Netscape with a free browser.) The company changed priorities nearly overnight, and did the equivalent of a battleship doing an 180 degree turn.
No decrepit monopoly there. Its the legal actions that limits Microsoft's manoevering nowadays. (Interesting sidenote, there are hints that Google is revisiting the Netscape strategy of making Microsoft irrelevant...)
That depends. Computers. Computers are used in space, right? Then almost all /. stories should be in science then, right?
Oh, now I get it. A satellite is a form of spaceship, except its doesn't convey anything in space. Spaceships are science fiction, so by linguistic reduction, that makes it science . How could I not see that?
What on earth does a potential commercial transaction between two companies specializing in transmission of audio entertainment through satellites have to do with science ????
This has nothing to do with science; the collection of empirical data and experimental analysis to derive a physical truth. Its not a merger between two science research centers or science periodicals. It doesn't affect transmission of data between science research centers. It doesn't even affect scientific research funding. This story should have been stuck into Politics or YRO.
Screw anime. If they look like Jessica Alba, I'm so there...
Ah, a debate homo. "If I don't immediately contradict every stupid assertion you make, it must be true." You loser tool.
I have yet to hear of a single plastic surgeon who says "I only do plastic surgery on males". And if there are ten of them that do, that hardly means the hundreds of thousand plastic surgeons could make their living off of a male patient practice. Dredging up a web page hoping to attract more male customers is hardly proof these surgeons are making a living off of a male clientele, any more than advertising pet food over the internet helped pets.com financial solvency.
Yes you are. Flawed reasoning, using irrelevant factoids to attack a statement I made in response to someone else's assertion only makes you look like a tool.
As for your penile implant factoids, they are also irrelevant. Yes, the majority of men would like larger penises, but that doesn't mean a significant percentage of them are getting penile implant surgery. The cosmetic surgery industry is not making their living from penile implants.
Which brings me to the last obvious part. Spammers are not a significant percentage of the advertising industry, and thus do not prove they reflect a relevant market demand. The fact that people are sent 1M emails about penile implants does not mean men represent a significant portion of the cosmetic surgery clientele. If the industry could make a living off of such services, they would be advertising penile implants on TV, radio, and periodicals (other than Hustler or a pr0n channel). You may be stupid enough to get a penile implant from something you read from email, but trying to argue some people make money from this by duping people like you, hardly proves there is a significant industry, or that you are not an idiot. It does support the impression that you are a tool.
And posting as an anonymous coward is proof you are one.
So plastic surgeons don't need the income from the the 85% lipos, 80% hair removal, 75% of chin implants & nose jobs, because they are making a living from guys? Idiot.
No, cultural insecurity is not driving advertising for penile enlargment, its spam that is driving the increase in advertising. "Males must have an insecurity crisis about their penis size, because look at all this spam telling me there is a problem." Its like blaming WMD in Iraq for the invasion.
...and you go whine to your life partner how entertainment caters to the hetero population, and how wonderful the federal gov't is to go after these sexually gratuitous references in entertainment shows like Howard Stern.
I live in a blue state. Nobody equates sci-fi with bad softcore, because there is no softcore in broadcast TV sci-fi.
Now you're pushing crap. I never said Enterprise was anything other than a piece of crap.
Actually, I liked Lexx. The best thing about it was that it was unconventional.
I get that way whenever someone suggests to remove T&A from a show I like, particularly from individuals who pick nicknames of particularly despicable characters.
Because we like T & A. T & A is only objectionable when there is an absence of content. Content good. Content with T & A, perfect.
Does it? There is tons of T & A in Desperate Housewives, but I don't see men as the overwhelming demographic for that show. Guys aren't keeping Britney Spears concerts afloat. Plastic surgeons aren't making a living from guys wanting to augment their physical features.
Substance to the exclusion of style? Could The Avengers been as successful with a flat-chested Barbra Streisand as the female lead?
What geek wants their cultural icons to be taken seriously? Do you think I admire the headcase who wore a StarTrek uniform to court??? Or idiots who think one must have a manned reusable space shuttle in order to have an effective space research program? It the f**king general public that do not posess a geek sensibility that is screwing up good sci-fi. I say insist on quality fiction and stick in the T & A to keep the drooling idiots tuned in.
My feeling is that I would have had a much greater appreciation for B5 if Ivanova flashed more.
Not fond of him, or the chick who plays Starbuck. When one is so butch, she's unattractive, then you might as well have casted a guy. Not seeing a female perspective from this Starbuck. Totally all over Boomer though...
No, I think its heavily plot driven. You have themes like religious fundamentalism, conspiracy/insurgency paranoia, the inhuman requirements of duty, father son conflicts, hetero manager subordinate conflicts, and politics. If it was foremost a character based drama, this show would have died on Apollo/Starbuck.
They both have their strengths and weaknesses. What is critical is great writing, followed by excellent acting.
The walking vagina life support system is driving the freaking Cylon plot. She is the one revealing the nature of the machines (as theological fundamentalists), keeping the humans alive by guiding Baltar, and the one with the heavy insights on everything.
Here's a life tip. You'd be in error to think your homosexual or pederast perspective reflects refined taste. You are not going to convince 93% of the male audience they don't want to look at spectacularly attractive women, nor the hetero TV execs who produce this show. Frankly, your inability to appreciate the underlying themes of this show as reflected through its female characters only makes me think you're an idiot. Espousing those views are only going to attract attention from homophobes or angry victims of child molestation. Go back to your Full House reruns and stay away from the sci-fi.
Eye candy? You have Starbuck in almost every episode being a pivotal part of the action (and she is way too butch to be eye candy). You have Boomer driving major parts of the plot as Cylon saboteur head case. And the blonde Cylon babe is only eye candy? (I count at least twice she's driving the plot.) Hell, they even have a middle aged heifer as a major character. How many freaking shows do you see that?!?! What does BSG have to do, make their female characters recite Shakespeare??? Twit.
GR had to quit after the second season of TNG. He was dying of cancer. He was too sick to get involved with producing TNG. That was when Berman came in and when the show started to improve.