elmuerte

Favorite early cancelled TV series

Recommended Posts

Am I the ONLY PERSON on the internet who thinks that Firefly is horrendously overrated and I can kinda see why they didn't renew it? I'm not saying I disliked it - in fact, I kinda enjoyed most episodes - but I never EVER felt like 'Oh man, I want to watch the next one right now!'

I think Firefly is deathly dull, neither funny nor well written. It plays out like a jokey version of Space Above and Beyond with the whole series having no real coherence. I never found the characters even remotely interesting (I'd rather have watched Star TRek: The Next Generation and I hate that show too) nor anything that happened appealing. It was like someone had taken Red Dwarf, sucked all the humour out of it and made it American. Oh wait, they did that with the American Red Dwarf as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On a more serious note: I generally take these kinds of happenings as out of the ordinary. I don't recall Dollhouse's episodes being on a day-to-day basis (although I may be wrong), so the "normal" stuff just happens when we don't see it. Whether or not that makes for good storytelling is probably up to how the writers actually handle it, but yeah.

Not to mention there are prostitutes for those people who just want to have sex with a pretty woman (no pun intended). If you're willing to pay the money and run the legal risk for a brainwashed human robot it's not inconceivable you might want more than just sex sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but most of the second half of second season (especially the insipid runaway love story) is throwaway nonsense.

zOAwY.jpg

I'm currently watching Twin Peaks for the first time with friends. We just got to the end of that weird arc with Hurley and the rich lady. Consensus: James Hurley is an insipid little shit who couldn't keep his wang in his pants even if it were riveted to his thigh. God knows why they give him so much screen time.

Edit: Mostly though, we love it. Beyond it, I especially like that Major Briggs talks of

his job being highly classified, but involving protecting the earth from things beyond it

, then years later the same actor turns up in a very similar uniform in Stargate :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just got finished going through all of Twin Peaks for the first time about two months ago. Major Briggs is definitely the best part of the show post-murder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been watching Twin Peaks this weekend, it's a bit too soapy for me. But I do like the often bizarre elements. My favorite so far was the dream sequence with the dancing midget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody remember Space: Above and Beyond?

That was a cool show.

Only one season.

Fox. :shifty:

Also - Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles.

That show was way, way better than it had any right to be.

Edited by Sno

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also - Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles.

That show was way, way better than it had any right to be.

Oh shit, how did I forget that in compiling my list. I will evangelize the shit out that show. So unexpectedly smart and interesting (after the awful pilot, at least), though the middle of the second season drags. It was real science fiction--actually much more science fiction (as in interested in extrapolating the repercussions of technological advancement) than the films were. And the finale!

I love that they were completely willing to throw out the John Connor = JC our savior BS and demonstrate that John's not really that important to the resistance surviving--other than that John was willing to make an alliance with the machines (and may also be dead with Cameron running things in his stead? The whole submarine two-parter was great.) Also, the moment where John sees Cameron and then realizes a second later that it's Allison from Palmdale is crushing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not to mention there are prostitutes for those people who just want to have sex with a pretty woman (no pun intended). If you're willing to pay the money and run the legal risk for a brainwashed human robot it's not inconceivable you might want more than just sex sometimes.

Yeah... but the cases where the rich psychopath hires a beautiful woman so he can pretend to love her and then hunt her like an animal is not what the Dollhouse was set up for. It does make sense that those are the rare cases and, in theory, the "dolls" are to never be put in any danger, but the show paints a world of near unending grimness in this respect... and those darker cases have nothing to do with the overall story (a woman losing and regaining her self). We never even see hints of "average" engagements.

And, according to the showrunners, that's only because Fox freaked out at the idea of it being a serialized show that featured sex. (As one of the writers put it, apparently Fox didn't make the connection that these people might be used for sex... to the writers' astonishment.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And, according to the showrunners, that's only because Fox freaked out at the idea of it being a serialized show that featured sex. (As one of the writers put it, apparently Fox didn't make the connection that these people might be used for sex... to the writers' astonishment.)

Now that I believe, as bizarre as it is. It sort of makes you wonder what the show might have been had it been on HBO. Not that I'm necessarily implying it would have been better - having only watched a couple of episodes, I'm not really even in a position to judge the quality of what actually existed, let alone a speculative alternative version. Nor am I saying that HBO's seeming insistence that its dramas all have relatively frequent nudity is always a good thing, but the network is at least clearly not afraid of that aspect of humanity. Dollhouse seems like a series that could have said things about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now that I believe, as bizarre as it is. It sort of makes you wonder what the show might have been had it been on HBO. Not that I'm necessarily implying it would have been better - having only watched a couple of episodes, I'm not really even in a position to judge the quality of what actually existed, let alone a speculative alternative version. Nor am I saying that HBO's seeming insistence that its dramas all have relatively frequent nudity is always a good thing, but the network is at least clearly not afraid of that aspect of humanity. Dollhouse seems like a series that could have said things about it.

It'd be interesting to see a Joss Whedon show unchecked by the realities of network TV.

But I'm not sure it'd really be that different in the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It'd be interesting to see a Joss Whedon show unchecked by the realities of network TV.

But I'm not sure it'd really be that different in the end.

Yeah, it's not like I ever watched Buffy or Firefly and thought "what this really needs is some graphic nudity, violence and swearing!" It would have been pretty out of tone for both shows (I always saw Buffy as being deliberately a bit silly, but if I'm wrong about that feel free to correct as I'm not a huge fan), although at least having the option to show Inara's life a bit more honestly might have been appreciated I suppose.

Dollhouse is really the only one that prompted me to wonder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, it's not like I ever watched Buffy or Firefly and thought "what this really needs is some graphic nudity, violence and swearing!" It would have been pretty out of tone for both shows (I always saw Buffy as being deliberately a bit silly, but if I'm wrong about that feel free to correct as I'm not a huge fan), although at least having the option to show Inara's life a bit more honestly might have been appreciated I suppose.

Dollhouse is really the only one that prompted me to wonder.

There's nudity, violence, and swearing, and then there's just straight up creative freedom. I'm sure there's more restrictions than just FCC regulations when you're writing for Fox or whatever. I mean, without those extra restrictions - that is to say, budget - Firefly would have obviously lasted more than one season. Dollhouse more than two. Buffy probably would have ended sooner? Maybe? I feel like it should have, but then, like you, I'm not a huge fan. Fucking army guy was the beginning of the end for me. (I liked Angel the series a lot more, as a whole.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha, S.Hammack and I are rewatching Buffy and just got to the "goodbye, Riley" stage.

Moment of celebration, the meathead buff army guy love interest has gone!

Oh. Immediately, he's replaced by buff doctor intern guy/Glory puppet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think I caught that.

Jesus, man. That's pretty rude. I'm kind of surprised to hear that coming from you.

Quote:

"Additional problems hit the second season when the Cooper/Audrey storyline was nixed by Kyle MacLachlan, meaning that a ton of lacklustre B and C stories suddenly got promoted to major A stories."

That was the only reason he was given so much screen time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, it's not like I ever watched Buffy or Firefly and thought "what this really needs is some graphic nudity, violence and swearing!" It would have been pretty out of tone for both shows (I always saw Buffy as being deliberately a bit silly, but if I'm wrong about that feel free to correct as I'm not a huge fan), although at least having the option to show Inara's life a bit more honestly might have been appreciated I suppose.

Dollhouse is really the only one that prompted me to wonder.

It's not just nudity and swearing that you can't do on Network TV (violence is fine), it's certain stories. Fox's interference in Firefly and Dollhouse led to the following changes:

Dollhouse was changed into a procedural (aka "mission of the week"). It was "sexed up" (all the female characters clothes were changed so they showed cleavage, shower scenes we added, etc.). The lighter stories were nixed, and more bombastic and dark stories were pushed forward. And any stories involving the prostitution were also nixed. (Again, not because of nudity concerns -- big because they didn't want stories about sex. Crazily hypocritical, really.)

Firefly had Mal changed into more of a witty/fun guy. Originally he was a broken man from what had happened during the war (as seen in the pilot episode and the movie). Whedon wanted death to be taken seriously, and not used lightly, but the network nixed that -- so you have moments were Mal throws a henchman into the ship's engine for the sake of a comedy beat. The network wanted Zoe and Wash to have a "will they/won't they" relationship instead of being married (like every other TV show ever), but Whedon won that one. Probably a ton of other stuff I don't know about.

When I met Anthony Head, one of the few things he told me was that Fox wouldn't let him make the show that he wanted to with Firefly. The final product wasn't a million miles away, thankfully, but with that show and with Dollhouse it was the same story:

Whedon: "We're going to do X!".

Fox: "Great! X is exactly what we want. We love it! Go for it."

(cut to later)

Whedon: "Here's X!".

Fox: "Oh, wow. We were actually thinking you'd be making Y".

Whedon: "What? We discussed this. We agreed to make X."

Fox: "Yeah, but we really want Y. Change it or we don't make the show and fire everybody."

Whedon: "I really hate you guys."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jesus, man. That's pretty rude. I'm kind of surprised to hear that coming from you.

I honestly don't know what to say to that, Thunder. From here, that seems like a really strange thing to say.

Some days, I'm too busy to read these forums. Other times, I'm perhaps trying to avoid spoilers, and that has certainly been the case with Twin Peaks. It is not rude to have missed a post of yours occasionally, or perhaps not remember it, but you seem to be saying exactly that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I honestly don't know what to say to that, Thunder. From here, that seems like a really strange thing to say.

Some days, I'm too busy to read these forums. Other times, I'm perhaps trying to avoid spoilers, and that has certainly been the case with Twin Peaks. It is not rude to have missed a post of yours occasionally, or perhaps not remember it, but you seem to be saying exactly that.

Well, I was replying directly to you. Taking the time to respond to someone's questions, only to have it ignored, is an annoying thing (as I'm sure you can relate to), but that's not why I was offended. I was offended because instead of saying, "Oops! Sorry I must have missed that, I'll take a look back at what you wrote to me.", you said, "I don't think I caught that". Which has the subtext: [i've taken the time to response, but I didn't take the time to go back one page and read what you wrote... because that's far too much effort].

Edited by ThunderPeel2001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

071130objection.jpg

The plaintiff stated:

I was offended because instead of saying, "Oops! Sorry I must have missed that, I'll take a look back at what you wrote to me.", you said, "I don't think I caught that". Which has the subtext: [i've taken the time to response, but I didn't take the time to go back one page and read what you wrote... because that's far too much effort].

This subtext is entirely inferred by the plaintiff, rather than implied by the defendant. Furthermore:

You mean... aside from the explanation I gave? :erm:

There is no clear implication here that said explanation was A) one page back and B) personally directed at the defendant. In the context of multiple, spoiler-heavy discussions about the TV show in question, A+B was not a likely assumption for the defendant to make.

In that context, let us examine reasons why the defendant might not go an unspecified number of pages back to find a post that had non-specifically been referred to until the plaintiff linked directly to it in the post above:

The ways that search and pagination interact in vBulletin fucking suck.

Now, let us examine reasons the post might have been missed in the first place. The defendant likes to click on Exhibit A:

uDSi8.gif

and lots of Exhibit B:

CdlIM.gif

and, because the Idle Forums are a busy place with many threads not necessarily relevant or desirable to read for a given individual, sometimes Exhibit C:

P0uyj.jpg

For those unaware, Exhibit B takes a motherfucker directly to the first new post, positioning the top of the browser window on that first new post, excluding any prior posts from both that window and the likely subsequent downward scroll.

Inevitably, there are sometimes periods between clicking on Exhibit A, Exhibit B, and Exhibit C, in which further new posts can be made by others and accidentally be ignored by the defendant. While the defendant tries to minimise this period with swift clicks, it is impossible to reduce the time to zero, and he may also have been distracted by a shiny internet bauble. Furthermore, vBulletin does not notify users that their username has been included in a post.

While it is imposible to determine absolutely what happened, given all of the above, the best and most likely hypothesis is that the plaintiff's post was accidentally missed by the defendant, rather than intentionally disregarded to annoy the plaintiff.

Well, I was replying

directly to you. Taking the time to respond to someone's questions, only to have it ignored, is an annoying thing (as I'm sure you can relate to), but that's not why I was offended.

Thunder, I am sorry if my words offended you. I didn't mean for them to, and have honestly been baffled at the amount of offense you could take at them. I am quite a direct and sometimes succinct person, but you assumed the worst, while also expecting me to make some assumptions I really didn't.

As far as answering something here and it being ignored, that happens to me too sometimes. vBulletin has a lot of annoying quirks that I've been aware of for a long time, and people also have all kinds of reasons. Sure, it can be annoying, but I try to let it pass and assume the best of people.

Edited by Nachimir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dollhouse was changed into a procedural (aka "mission of the week"). It was "sexed up" (all the female characters clothes were changed so they showed cleavage, shower scenes we added, etc.). The lighter stories were nixed, and more bombastic and dark stories were pushed forward. And any stories involving the prostitution were also nixed. (Again, not because of nudity concerns -- big because they didn't want stories about sex. Crazily hypocritical, really.)

Wow, that is... schizophrenic. If all that is really true then yeah, I wish that series had been made elsewhere. It's like a choose your own adventure game in which you always choose the worst third path.

Do we explore human sexuality or do we keep it clean for families?

Answer: Neither! Make the series appear sexualised but prevent it from actually tackling any issues related to that!

Do we maintain a light and fun tone for ease of consumption, or traverse darker storylines to provoke thought in our viewers?

Answer: Neither! We'll have those dark and edgy plots, but won't actually allow the series to show anything which might expose the heart of the reasons for or consequences of disturbing human behaviour.

TV executives really are weird guys.

Firefly had Mal changed into more of a witty/fun guy. Originally he was a broken man from what had happened during the war (as seen in the pilot episode and the movie). Whedon wanted death to be taken seriously, and not used lightly, but the network nixed that -- so you have moments were Mal throws a henchman into the ship's engine for the sake of a comedy beat.

I don't know if I actually entirely disagree with this one. There were a couple of episodes in the series, and a few scenes in other episodes, that showed Mal (and to an extent, Zoe) had been profoundly changed by the war. I was looking forward to getting to see that explored more thoroughly as the series went on, but I don't know if it needed to be the core of his character. I quite liked the balance that was able to be struck between humour and emotion with Mal, most of the time. I also think Nathan Fillion excels at playing that type of character, amusingly lighthearted much of the time and occasionally more serious and emotional.

Though, yeah, you did note one of the moments during which it was... strained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we explore human sexuality or do we keep it clean for families?

Answer: Neither! Make the series appear sexualised but prevent it from actually tackling any issues related to that!

Do we maintain a light and fun tone for ease of consumption, or traverse darker storylines to provoke thought in our viewers?

Answer: Neither! We'll have those dark and edgy plots, but won't actually allow the series to show anything which might expose the heart of the reasons for or consequences of disturbing human behaviour.

TV executives really are weird guys.

They wanted the audience to get their voyeuristic pleasure on and not to think about it at all, because there's more money in cheesecake than in reexamining one's approaches and responses to sexualized imagery and situations. I'm guessing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
071130objection.jpg

The plaintiff stated:

This subtext is entirely inferred by the plaintiff, rather than implied by the defendant. Furthermore:

There is no clear implication here that said explanation was A) one page back and B) personally directed at the defendant. In the context of multiple, spoiler-heavy discussions about the TV show in question, A+B was not a likely assumption for the defendant to make.

In that context, let us examine reasons why the defendant might not go an unspecified number of pages back to find a post that had non-specifically been referred to until the plaintiff linked directly to it in the post above:

The ways that search and pagination interact in vBulletin fucking suck.

Now, let us examine reasons the post might have been missed in the first place. The defendant likes to click on Exhibit A:

uDSi8.gif

and lots of Exhibit B:

CdlIM.gif

and, because the Idle Forums are a busy place with many threads not necessarily relevant or desirable to read for a given individual, sometimes Exhibit C:

P0uyj.jpg

For those unaware, Exhibit B takes a motherfucker directly to the first new post, positioning the top of the browser window on that first new post, excluding any prior posts from both that window and the likely subsequent downward scroll.

Inevitably, there are sometimes periods between clicking on Exhibit A, Exhibit B, and Exhibit C, in which further new posts can be made by others and accidentally be ignored by the defendant. While the defendant tries to minimise this period with swift clicks, it is impossible to reduce the time to zero, and he may also have been distracted by a shiny internet bauble. Furthermore, vBulletin does not notify users that their username has been included in a post.

While it is imposible to determine absolutely what happened, given all of the above, the best and most likely hypothesis is that the plaintiff's post was accidentally missed by the defendant, rather than intentionally disregarded to annoy the plaintiff.

Uh... Objection? ;(

:getmecoat

Thunder, I am sorry if my words offended you. I didn't mean for them to, and have honestly been baffled at the amount of offense you could take at them. I am quite a direct and sometimes succinct person, but you assumed the worst, while also expecting me to make some assumptions I really didn't.

As far as answering something here and it being ignored, that happens to me too sometimes. vBulletin has a lot of annoying quirks that I've been aware of for a long time, and people also have all kinds of reasons. Sure, it can be annoying, but I try to let it pass and assume the best of people.

As I say, it wasn't that you ignored me, it was that even when I indicated I'd answered your question you still ignored me. I understand that these things happen by accident, but when someone has alerted you to that, it's a different story.

You claim that I assumed the worst, but that wasn't the case. I assumed the best, but then witnessed the worst.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know if I actually entirely disagree with this one. There were a couple of episodes in the series, and a few scenes in other episodes, that showed Mal (and to an extent, Zoe) had been profoundly changed by the war. I was looking forward to getting to see that explored more thoroughly as the series went on, but I don't know if it needed to be the core of his character. I quite liked the balance that was able to be struck between humour and emotion with Mal, most of the time. I also think Nathan Fillion excels at playing that type of character, amusingly lighthearted much of the time and occasionally more serious and emotional.

Yeah, Whedon made it work, I enjoyed the "new" Mal, too, and it didn't totally preclude the old Mal. It's just quite a difference when you watch the pilot and movie, and compare him to the rest of the series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You claim that I assumed the worst, but that wasn't the case. I assumed the best, but then witnessed the worst.

You levelled an unfair and untrue accusation at me. If you want to stand by that, even after I've explained your error and still apologised, I'm afraid that really is just yours to live with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now