Escape Artists

News:

News

ATTENTION: NEW FORUM THEME Please see here for details: http://forum.escapeartists.net/index.php?topic=13188.0

Poll

Pick the series you've liked/loved/hated, but couldn't stop watching. Yes, I know you can't pick just one, that's why you can pick four.

Doctor Who (Old and New, Torchwood inclusive)
25 (9.2%)
Stargate SG-1/Atlantis
8 (2.9%)
Battlestar Galactica
23 (8.5%)
Babylon 5
23 (8.5%)
Firefly
38 (14%)
Sliders
1 (0.4%)
Mystery Science Theater 3000
15 (5.5%)
Farscape
12 (4.4%)
The Prisoner
7 (2.6%)
The Six Million Dollar Man
2 (0.7%)
Superman (various)
2 (0.7%)
The Jetsons
2 (0.7%)
Andromeda
5 (1.8%)
Wonder Woman (I put in Superman)
2 (0.7%)
Quantum Leap
10 (3.7%)
Red Dwarf
15 (5.5%)
The Twilight Zone
11 (4%)
The X-Files
23 (8.5%)
Lost in Space
2 (0.7%)
Star Trek (Any/All)
33 (12.1%)
Eureka
4 (1.5%)
UFO
0 (0%)
Seaquest
0 (0%)
Batman
5 (1.8%)
Lost
4 (1.5%)

Total Members Voted: 65

Author Topic: SF TV Series you've felt postive emotions for  (Read 39964 times)

DKT

  • Friendly Neighborhood
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 4980
  • PodCastle is my Co-Pilot
    • Psalms & Hymns & Spiritual Noir
Reply #75 on: February 27, 2007, 08:11:50 PM
Overall, I actually thought Dogget was relatively interesting (Reyes never clicked with me all the way).  But I still think they should've either ended the Mulder/Scully show either at the end of season 8 or somewhere in the middle of season 7 -- when Mulder "finds" his sister (sorry, can't remember the episode name). I probably would've kept watching if they did the Dogget/Reyes show, though. 


Talia

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2682
  • Muahahahaha
Reply #76 on: February 28, 2007, 03:43:24 PM
Someone mentioned the X-Files a while back, so I thought I'd drop this in....
During the last couple of seasons, when it became obvious that they were getting drowned in their own ongoing story arc, I think they had an opportunity to continue the show with Dogget and Reyes, but they missed the boat.  What I think they should have done was to continue the series but with no overall story arc - let that go with Scully and Mulder - and just have self contained episodes with a set formula (for lack of a better term). Reyes was the believer and Dogget was the skeptic.  Each week, they would be presented with some weird crime that looked like something paranormal was going on. Sometimes there would be, sometimes there wouldn't be and sometimes it would leave it ambiguous, but you never knew until the final scene.  With good writing, acting, etc...they could have continued this for a long time. I mean, how long has CSI been on now and then generally have two crimes per episode and never leave Las Vegas.

I don't know; IMHO part of the reason the xfiles was so wonderful was the characters of Mulder and Scully themselves and the particular chemistry they had. I don't think it could have been at all recaptured in a Dogget/Reyes team up (although I liked Dogget as well). I'm not sure if the continued loyalty of the rabid Xfiles fandom would be enough to let it continue :P (although I'll confess I probably would have watched it as well, for a little while anyway).



Russell Nash

  • Guest
Reply #77 on: February 28, 2007, 07:42:14 PM
Someone mentioned the X-Files a while back, so I thought I'd drop this in....
During the last couple of seasons, when it became obvious that they were getting drowned in their own ongoing story arc, I think they had an opportunity to continue the show with Dogget and Reyes, but they missed the boat.  What I think they should have done was to continue the series but with no overall story arc - let that go with Scully and Mulder - and just have self contained episodes with a set formula (for lack of a better term). Reyes was the believer and Dogget was the skeptic.  Each week, they would be presented with some weird crime that looked like something paranormal was going on. Sometimes there would be, sometimes there wouldn't be and sometimes it would leave it ambiguous, but you never knew until the final scene.  With good writing, acting, etc...they could have continued this for a long time. I mean, how long has CSI been on now and then generally have two crimes per episode and never leave Las Vegas.

I don't know; IMHO part of the reason the xfiles was so wonderful was the characters of Mulder and Scully themselves and the particular chemistry they had. I don't think it could have been at all recaptured in a Dogget/Reyes team up (although I liked Dogget as well). I'm not sure if the continued loyalty of the rabid Xfiles fandom would be enough to let it continue :P (although I'll confess I probably would have watched it as well, for a little while anyway).

The X-files fans were so devote, that I think they would have given any new "couple" a few episodes to get in their groove. If the writers came up with a good hook, the show probably would have been able to continue.

The interesting thing about the show was that with all of it's popularity, it really didn't get copied. There wasn't really another choice. Before everyone points out how wrong that statement is, compare it to Law & Order. There were three L&O on the air at one time (or was it four) and then you also had three or four CSI shows.



ClintMemo

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 680
Reply #78 on: February 28, 2007, 08:55:43 PM
Someone mentioned the X-Files a while back, so I thought I'd drop this in....
During the last couple of seasons, when it became obvious that they were getting drowned in their own ongoing story arc, I think they had an opportunity to continue the show with Dogget and Reyes, but they missed the boat.  What I think they should have done was to continue the series but with no overall story arc - let that go with Scully and Mulder - and just have self contained episodes with a set formula (for lack of a better term). Reyes was the believer and Dogget was the skeptic.  Each week, they would be presented with some weird crime that looked like something paranormal was going on. Sometimes there would be, sometimes there wouldn't be and sometimes it would leave it ambiguous, but you never knew until the final scene.  With good writing, acting, etc...they could have continued this for a long time. I mean, how long has CSI been on now and then generally have two crimes per episode and never leave Las Vegas.

I don't know; IMHO part of the reason the xfiles was so wonderful was the characters of Mulder and Scully themselves and the particular chemistry they had. I don't think it could have been at all recaptured in a Dogget/Reyes team up (although I liked Dogget as well). I'm not sure if the continued loyalty of the rabid Xfiles fandom would be enough to let it continue :P (although I'll confess I probably would have watched it as well, for a little while anyway).

The X-files fans were so devote, that I think they would have given any new "couple" a few episodes to get in their groove. If the writers came up with a good hook, the show probably would have been able to continue.

The interesting thing about the show was that with all of it's popularity, it really didn't get copied. There wasn't really another choice. Before everyone points out how wrong that statement is, compare it to Law & Order. There were three L&O on the air at one time (or was it four) and then you also had three or four CSI shows.

The x-files never got franchised like CSI and L&O, but I remember there being several shows that tried to copy it and all of them getting canceled quickly. (Don't ask me to remember the titles.)  Isn't there one on sci-fi right now? 
I think the reason Fox never franchised it was that it was serialized - CSI and L&O are not, AFAIK.  Also, consider that CSI has been in the top 10 in the ratings ever week it has been shown.  I'll bet the X-Files only made it into the top 10 maybe a handful of times in it's entire existence - if ever.  I'm also not sure if Fox has a thing against franchising.  They could easily franchise "24."  You wouldn't even have to have it be fighting terrorists in another city.  The hook of 24 is the real-time aspect.  You could easily have 24 in a hospital emergency room, 24 in a firehouse, 24 in a police precinct. Hell, 24 at a 7/11 if you did t right.  :P

Life is a multiple choice test. Unfortunately, the answers are not provided.  You have to go and find them before picking the best one.


Russell Nash

  • Guest
Reply #79 on: February 28, 2007, 09:31:08 PM
Someone mentioned the X-Files a while back, so I thought I'd drop this in....
During the last couple of seasons, when it became obvious that they were getting drowned in their own ongoing story arc, I think they had an opportunity to continue the show with Dogget and Reyes, but they missed the boat.  What I think they should have done was to continue the series but with no overall story arc - let that go with Scully and Mulder - and just have self contained episodes with a set formula (for lack of a better term). Reyes was the believer and Dogget was the skeptic.  Each week, they would be presented with some weird crime that looked like something paranormal was going on. Sometimes there would be, sometimes there wouldn't be and sometimes it would leave it ambiguous, but you never knew until the final scene.  With good writing, acting, etc...they could have continued this for a long time. I mean, how long has CSI been on now and then generally have two crimes per episode and never leave Las Vegas.

I don't know; IMHO part of the reason the xfiles was so wonderful was the characters of Mulder and Scully themselves and the particular chemistry they had. I don't think it could have been at all recaptured in a Dogget/Reyes team up (although I liked Dogget as well). I'm not sure if the continued loyalty of the rabid Xfiles fandom would be enough to let it continue :P (although I'll confess I probably would have watched it as well, for a little while anyway).

The X-files fans were so devote, that I think they would have given any new "couple" a few episodes to get in their groove. If the writers came up with a good hook, the show probably would have been able to continue.

The interesting thing about the show was that with all of it's popularity, it really didn't get copied. There wasn't really another choice. Before everyone points out how wrong that statement is, compare it to Law & Order. There were three L&O on the air at one time (or was it four) and then you also had three or four CSI shows.

The x-files never got franchised like CSI and L&O, but I remember there being several shows that tried to copy it and all of them getting canceled quickly. (Don't ask me to remember the titles.)  Isn't there one on sci-fi right now? 
I think the reason Fox never franchised it was that it was serialized - CSI and L&O are not, AFAIK.  Also, consider that CSI has been in the top 10 in the ratings ever week it has been shown.  I'll bet the X-Files only made it into the top 10 maybe a handful of times in it's entire existence - if ever.  I'm also not sure if Fox has a thing against franchising.  They could easily franchise "24."  You wouldn't even have to have it be fighting terrorists in another city.  The hook of 24 is the real-time aspect.  You could easily have 24 in a hospital emergency room, 24 in a firehouse, 24 in a police precinct. Hell, 24 at a 7/11 if you did t right.  :P


My examples weren't clear.

I was basically implying that L&O and CSI are the same type of show andall the other  crime shows on at the air at the same time. probably a total of ten shows or more all from the same mold.



ClintMemo

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 680
Reply #80 on: February 28, 2007, 11:36:35 PM
Yeah, I know what you mean - cookie cutter drama. Comedies are bad about that, too. It seems like all comedies have the wacky neighbor, for example.

Life is a multiple choice test. Unfortunately, the answers are not provided.  You have to go and find them before picking the best one.


Heradel

  • Bill Peters, EP Assistant
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 2938
  • Part-Time Psychopomp.
Reply #81 on: March 01, 2007, 12:18:23 PM
Yeah, I know what you mean - cookie cutter drama. Comedies are bad about that, too. It seems like all comedies have the wacky neighbor, for example.
Oh, I know. I totally hate it when Shakespeare kept shoving in that whole wise deus-ex-machina king/prince archetype into every fraking comedy he wrote. I could stand it in Much Ado About Nothing, and it was tolerable in The Merchant of Venice, but he totally ruined Measure for Measure* with it.

(*I know Measure for Measure is one of the problem plays and is only loosely a comedy.)

I Twitter. I also occasionally blog on the Escape Pod blog, which if you're here you shouldn't have much trouble finding.


Roney

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 440
Reply #82 on: March 04, 2007, 06:49:22 PM
Missing option: "Space: Above and Beyond".  Just rewatching it again: still flawed, still excellent.



Roney

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 440
Reply #83 on: March 04, 2007, 07:50:57 PM
Missing option: Ultraviolet.  No, not that Ultraviolet.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ultraviolet-Complete-2-Disc-Set/dp/B000053W5J/

Best.  Vampire.  Show.  Ever.  And I say that as a big fan of Buffy.

At only six one-hour episodes it's probably too short to count for the poll, but I had to put in a word for it.



DKT

  • Friendly Neighborhood
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 4980
  • PodCastle is my Co-Pilot
    • Psalms & Hymns & Spiritual Noir
Reply #84 on: March 05, 2007, 04:57:23 PM
Missing option: "Space: Above and Beyond".  Just rewatching it again: still flawed, still excellent.

I liked that show a lot.  I can't believe it got canned after the first year.  I think about it a lot when I'm watching the new BSG.


Zathras

  • Guest
Reply #85 on: March 16, 2007, 02:35:49 AM
How about the "Planet of the Apes" TV series?   I loved it as a kid and now am watching it courtesy of NetFlix.  I find that it is a bit corny and seems to be like Kung Fu, only the citizens wear ape/chimp/orangutan masks.  I would say the movies were better but it is fun to revisit something after 23 years.     



Planish

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 772
  • Fun will now commence.
    • northernelectric.ca
Reply #86 on: March 16, 2007, 03:39:30 AM
Merciful Heavens. My four choices were in the top five.
I must be getting ... mainstream.
Eeuw.

I feed The Pod.
("planish" rhymes with "vanish")


DKT

  • Friendly Neighborhood
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 4980
  • PodCastle is my Co-Pilot
    • Psalms & Hymns & Spiritual Noir
Reply #87 on: March 16, 2007, 04:33:53 PM
I think if you're mainstream in this group you're probably still counter-culture/alternative at heart  ;)


Anarkey

  • Meen Pie
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 703
  • ...depends a good deal on where you want to get to
Reply #88 on: March 16, 2007, 07:30:41 PM
Merciful Heavens. My four choices were in the top five.
I must be getting ... mainstream.
Eeuw.

We're talking television here.  The whole medium is mainstream.  That's the point of it. 

Winner Nash's 1000th member betting pool + Thaurismunths' Free Rice Contest!


ClintMemo

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 680
Reply #89 on: March 16, 2007, 07:38:13 PM
Merciful Heavens. My four choices were in the top five.
I must be getting ... mainstream.
Eeuw.

We're talking television here.  The whole medium is mainstream.  That's the point of it. 

I have a hard time seeing things like "The Venture Brothers" or "Drawn together" as mainstream.
Of course, I also remember when there was only 3 networks, 5 stations and shows used to advertise as being "In Color!"
TV has a lot more niche programs than it did way back when.  I think at some point, there will be so much variety of entertainment content that the idea of something being mainstream will be lost.

Life is a multiple choice test. Unfortunately, the answers are not provided.  You have to go and find them before picking the best one.


lowky

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 2717
  • from http://lovecraftismissing.com/?page_id=3142
Reply #90 on: March 19, 2007, 05:21:19 PM
There were some missing from that list I enjoyed.  I didn't vote for firefly, I enjoy it immensely but I never saw it til it was on DVD, so I don't think it qualifies for me.  A co-worker loaned it to a former roommate.  I voted for X-files, though I didn't like what many will call it's central theme--The big government conspiracy to cover up alien exisitance.  I liked episodes like the one about Flukeman, and the one that was based more or less on Tyson chicken.  The more out there stories, the better, some horror, some more sci-fi, all good.  I enjoyed V as a kid.  The old Buck Rogers.  Quantum Leap I enjoyed as it was a bit different in its premise, and the story ideas could just keep coming with it as a result.  What would have been icing on the cake for me though with X-files, is that if the aliens were really great old ones, they brought in the spun off Millenium as part of that.  How would Mulder and Scully fare as investigators in Call of Cthulhu settings.


Anarkey

  • Meen Pie
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 703
  • ...depends a good deal on where you want to get to
Reply #91 on: March 20, 2007, 02:44:51 PM
I have a hard time seeing things like "The Venture Brothers" or "Drawn together" as mainstream.
Of course, I also remember when there was only 3 networks, 5 stations and shows used to advertise as being "In Color!"
TV has a lot more niche programs than it did way back when.  I think at some point, there will be so much variety of entertainment content that the idea of something being mainstream will be lost.

You may be right, television may continue to diversify more and more and there may be increasingly smaller niches of viewing, but I think, generally, that the people involved in the television industry are being dragged that way kicking and screaming, and they still prefer Superbowls and shows everyone talks about Monday morning.  I also think, economies of scalewise, that television is still for the masses and thus, designed to be mainstream.

I should note that I don't really care for television, by and large.  I watch, at most, two shows and that only since I got a dvr (in the last year).  I stopped watching shows in real time in about 2002, barring the occasional hockey game (which, btw, is a sport that's really struggling with television contracts because it doesn't get enough eyeballs), so I'm not particularly well-informed on the specifics of current television.  I just know that the medium is meant to go into every household and, by definition, that's not terribly alternative.

That said, you'll pry the episodes of Firefly on DVD out of my fingers when I'm dead, and not an instant before.  I pull out Babylon 5 roughly every three or four years and rewatch it (though I skim season 1).  OTOH, though I semi-currently watch BSG (I'm about three months behind), I never see myself re-watching it or purchasing it and sometimes it's exceptionally irritating.  I've nearly stopped watching it twice...no, three times.  I'm just not really invested in TV.  If the whole industry went away tomorrow, I wouldn't miss it.  I realize this is not normal, but it nonetheless is.

Winner Nash's 1000th member betting pool + Thaurismunths' Free Rice Contest!


ClintMemo

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 680
Reply #92 on: March 20, 2007, 03:05:33 PM
I am often struck by the irony that there are more things on TV now that I should be enjoying but I watch less and less television.  If not for my Tivo, I might not watch any at all.  I think the advances in technology are driving the costs of doing television down, at least for the equipment needed. Not long ago, something like "Stranger Things" would have been impossible.  That being the case, it's easier to create niche programs.  Also, advertisers like niche programs as long as the niche is big enough. They have a much more consistent demographic to sell to.

As an aside, I wouldn't give up on Hockey on television just yet. My theory is that hockey and soccer both have the same problem - they suck on TV.  If you pull the camera back far enough to see what is going on, you loose all the detail.  If you zoom in close enough to see the player with the puck, you can't follow the action.  I predict that when HD takes over the US, hockey and soccer will start to increase in popularity as a TV sport.

Life is a multiple choice test. Unfortunately, the answers are not provided.  You have to go and find them before picking the best one.


Zathras

  • Guest
Reply #93 on: March 21, 2007, 10:49:30 PM
I just thought of another classic series, Time Tunnel. I think it was a mid 1960's show.  I loved how despite the fact that they had no control over where they travelling in time they ended always ended up in some historically significant event.  One episode took place on the Titanic right before it hit the iceberg, another took place on that fateful day at Pearl Harbor, another was in the future on the first trip to the moon.  The latter episode was entertaining because of the way the moon trip was portrayed:  three guys sitting hanging around in a stainless steel living room cruising through space.  I guess if they would've landed in the everyday past or future it the show wouldn't have had a point. 



SFEley

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1408
    • Escape Artists, Inc.
Reply #94 on: March 22, 2007, 01:26:06 AM
I just thought of another classic series, Time Tunnel. I think it was a mid 1960's show.  I loved how despite the fact that they had no control over where they travelling in time they ended always ended up in some historically significant event.

Doctor Who was like that as well in the first few seasons.  Yes, I'm still on my quest to watch them all through in order.  (I'm almost through the Troughton seasons now.)

When it first began, the intent was to make a children's educational series.  About half the earliest episodes were historicals, with the Doctor and company meeting Marco Polo and Emperor Nero and such.  I think I can understand why they were less popular and eventually abandoned, but I really enjoyed them.  Some of them -- in particular "The Romans" and "The St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre" -- were among the best-written ones I've seen.

ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine


slic

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 727
  • Stephen Lumini
Reply #95 on: March 22, 2007, 02:28:06 AM
Quote from: ClintMemo
My theory is that hockey and soccer both have the same problem - they suck on TV.
I can never pass this kind of comment, sorry.  It's not the sport, it's the audience.  I enjoy soccer very much on TV, and without knowing the teams I can pretty easily pick out English League play vs Italian or German League.  It's a shame that the understanding of the game is not cultivated in the US, and HDTV won't really help IMHO.  It's often said that it's because Football and Basketball are "quick hit" sports and Americans don't have the attention span - that's garbage - it's because, plain and simple, the grow up on those sports.  The only people I've met from the States who play soccer after high school are those that played on University teams. 

My 2 cents about TV - it's definitely on the way out.  Niche markets, cheap, easy production cost, and cheap, easy distribution through the internet (check out http://www.newvoyages.com/).  And, yes, they like Superbowl, etc. it's easy to sell the ad space.  But when a medium sized audience is considered a giant hit (think Desperate Housewives), you know the writing is on the wall.



ClintMemo

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 680
Reply #96 on: March 22, 2007, 12:07:43 PM
Quote from: ClintMemo
My theory is that hockey and soccer both have the same problem - they suck on TV.
I can never pass this kind of comment, sorry.  It's not the sport, it's the audience.  I enjoy soccer very much on TV, and without knowing the teams I can pretty easily pick out English League play vs Italian or German League.  It's a shame that the understanding of the game is not cultivated in the US, and HDTV won't really help IMHO.  It's often said that it's because Football and Basketball are "quick hit" sports and Americans don't have the attention span - that's garbage - it's because, plain and simple, the grow up on those sports.  The only people I've met from the States who play soccer after high school are those that played on University teams. 

My 2 cents about TV - it's definitely on the way out.  Niche markets, cheap, easy production cost, and cheap, easy distribution through the internet (check out http://www.newvoyages.com/).  And, yes, they like Superbowl, etc. it's easy to sell the ad space.  But when a medium sized audience is considered a giant hit (think Desperate Housewives), you know the writing is on the wall.

A few quick facts...
Baseball rules sports television in the summer.
(American) Football rules sports television on sundays in the fall.
But the sport most elementary and middle school kids are actually playing in organized leagues  (including my 9 year old daughter)  is......soccer. (That's why they are called "soccer moms"  :))   That's been true for at least ten years, probably longer.  When the kids get older, there are very few teams for them to play on.  For example, in the county where I leave, there are probably over a thousand kids up to age 12 playing soccer in leagues. But there are probably only about 50 playing in high school (age 13-18) because they only teams they can play on are the actual school teams.  All the other kids either give up sports all together or play something else.

back to my opinion...
(Disclaimer: I have grown to hate watching sports on T.V.  I wasn't always that way, but now it's on my list of things that life is too short to do. :P )
Soccer hasn't taken off here professionally because there are no big American stars, which only develop when they get on TV, which never get on TV because there are no big stars....it's a vicious circle.  I heard recently that the Los Angeles pro soccer team is buying a big star from England, so maybe that will change.
Basketball is also pretty popular here and the only difference between hockey and basketball is the ice.  :P   Hockey is just as fast paced as basketball but because the rink is bigger and the sport moves faster, it sucks on TV.
Baseball and American Football are incredibly boring most of the time because most of the time nothing is actually happening. Everyone is between plays.  (You could probably condense an entire game of either sport down to 30 minutes if you left out all the parts where players are just standing around.)  Fast paced they are not.

I'm willing to bet that you've seen "real" soccer games live, not just on TV.  You probably know the game.  You know what's going on that you aren't seeing on the screen.  You are an informed viewer. Most American adults know little or nothing about the game of soccer.  When they see soccer on TV they see either a guy on the screen kicking a ball around or a big pullback shot with a bunch of ants.  They have no idea what is happening.  I took my daughter to see a college soccer game last year.  Watching that was completely different that watching soccer on TV.  Maybe when all those tykes grow up, buy big screen TV's and want to watch sports, they'll look at soccer.  Who knows?

Life is a multiple choice test. Unfortunately, the answers are not provided.  You have to go and find them before picking the best one.


slic

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 727
  • Stephen Lumini
Reply #97 on: March 22, 2007, 01:52:24 PM
It sounds to me like we agree. 
I've recently returned to Canada after living in Indianapolis for 3 years, and the soccer program there was HUGE.  I've coached my three kids soccer teams for years, and was pleased to see so much participation.  However, as much as the kids play, very few of their parents understood the game or had any interest about it.  Soccer was the filler sport - it's cheap, fairly safe and kept them fit for B-Ball or the "real" Football.  Exactly as you said, once they hit high school it was the school soccer team or pretty much nothing. So it's no surprise the kid's interest in the sport (even as a spectator) disappears.  I was part of a weekly pick-up game and 75-85% of all the players were foreign-born/raised or first-gen.

Having David Beckham play for the LA Galaxy is not going to help in the long run.  The man is more popular/well-known than Shaquille O'Neil, Peyton Manning, and A-Rod combined.  His jersey sales account for a large percentage Real Madrid's (his former club) merchandising. And there will be a bump (like when Pele playing in New York) in interest while he is here, but after he leaves, it will go back to moderate interest. 

Trying to keep it on the thread - anyone have a favourite sport scene from a sci-fi show?

For me it would be ST:Voyager, Capt Janeway playing 7 of 9 in some futuristic squash/raquetball thing, and 7 of 9 keeps saying stuff like "I'm so much better, it is pointless for you to play."  Then Janeway pulls off this amazing return and scores.  7 of 9 says "There is no way you did that on purpose."  And Janeway replies, "Actually, this is what I was thinking when I did it..."
Reminds me of that awesome feeling when I pull of an amazing play on the field that was totally intended.



ClintMemo

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 680
Reply #98 on: March 22, 2007, 02:25:44 PM

Trying to keep it on the thread - anyone have a favourite sport scene from a sci-fi show?

Not from a show but from a book. There is a bit from one of the Mythadventure books where they play a game like gladitorial football with three teams on a three sided field.

Reminds me of that awesome feeling when I pull of an amazing play on the field that was totally intended.

Golf is that way.  Hitting a golf ball well is really hard.  But no matter how bad you are, every once in a while, you'll accidentally hit a really good shot, and that one shot is the one that will tempt you to come back and try playing again. I'm convinced that golf was invented by Satan.

Life is a multiple choice test. Unfortunately, the answers are not provided.  You have to go and find them before picking the best one.


jrderego

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 687
  • Writer of Union Dues stories (among others)
    • J. R. DeRego - Writer
Reply #99 on: March 22, 2007, 02:42:57 PM
It sounds to me like we agree. 
I've recently returned to Canada after living in Indianapolis for 3 years, and the soccer program there was HUGE.  I've coached my three kids soccer teams for years, and was pleased to see so much participation.  However, as much as the kids play, very few of their parents understood the game or had any interest about it.  Soccer was the filler sport - it's cheap, fairly safe and kept them fit for B-Ball or the "real" Football.  Exactly as you said, once they hit high school it was the school soccer team or pretty much nothing. So it's no surprise the kid's interest in the sport (even as a spectator) disappears.  I was part of a weekly pick-up game and 75-85% of all the players were foreign-born/raised or first-gen.

Having David Beckham play for the LA Galaxy is not going to help in the long run.  The man is more popular/well-known than Shaquille O'Neil, Peyton Manning, and A-Rod combined.  His jersey sales account for a large percentage Real Madrid's (his former club) merchandising. And there will be a bump (like when Pele playing in New York) in interest while he is here, but after he leaves, it will go back to moderate interest. 

Trying to keep it on the thread - anyone have a favourite sport scene from a sci-fi show?

For me it would be ST:Voyager, Capt Janeway playing 7 of 9 in some futuristic squash/raquetball thing, and 7 of 9 keeps saying stuff like "I'm so much better, it is pointless for you to play."  Then Janeway pulls off this amazing return and scores.  7 of 9 says "There is no way you did that on purpose."  And Janeway replies, "Actually, this is what I was thinking when I did it..."
Reminds me of that awesome feeling when I pull of an amazing play on the field that was totally intended.

I've been a pretty steady MLS watcher since their inaugural season. Go Revs! One of the best moves that MLS made to get ready for this year is to partner with the German footbal league who will teach the MLS guys how to position the camera, how to light the fiely properly, how to shoot from multiple angles, to better portray the game on television. We might even get to see a couple of good exhibition matches between the good German clubs and the US teams. I think having a high profile player like David Beckham on someone's roster will be a good start and might attract some better international players to the game here in the states. The first couple of years we drew mostly from South and Central America and out play was very much like what you'd see from the Argentine, Mexican, or Venezualan clubs (all of which you can see on Spanish Language Cable). But as more Europeans are drawn to MLS that will change. I don't know if it will draw more fans, but it will certainly make for better and more varied football play.

I still miss Walter Zenga.

"Happiness consists of getting enough sleep." Robert A. Heinlein
Also, please buy my book - Escape Clause: A Union Dues Novel
http://www.encpress.com/EC.html