http://www.idkfa.com/v3 idkfa: syndicated http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=5337&msg_id=6761 ENTER THE WAY BACK MACHINE TO RANDOM IDKFA POST Archer is at the end of every list because his dialogue was both poorly written and poorly executed. He was so vanilla, he had no personality, and was often the human foil in the alien plot. Man, Enterprise was just fucking shitty. Scrotor@idkfa.com (Scrotor) Cognitive Surplus Wed, 08 Oct 2014 03:11:50 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=5337&msg_id=6761 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=5337&msg_id=5345 Sorry to harp on the same bandwagon that everyone else is drinking from (not to mix metaphors) but have you all seen La Mulgrew in Orange is the New Black? Episode 2 is like a masterclass in acting. Also, her in The Captains? I mean, she got interviewed on a stage. She is so dedicated. I've been randomly watching some eps from the end of season 7 and there are some quite good ones in there. Even some early ones are good. But you're right that they missed TONS of opportunities in every season. Why is Archer always the end of every list? Wilber@idkfa.com (Wilber) Cognitive Surplus Tue, 06 Aug 2013 18:26:29 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=5337&msg_id=5345 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=5337&msg_id=5343 BSG was a contender in its own right, I feel (the first two seasons). Or at least brought something new to the table. Farscape and Andromeda were *way* more derivative (though, Farscape did have alien puppets as main characters). B5 tries to make improvements to the Star Trek formula by removing warp drives, replicators, and transporters, but then stumbles again when it adds in telepaths and bad acting. Stargate? Eh, the movie was enough. Two shows seems excessive. Science fiction fans are picky as hell, fear change, lament our underrepresented genre, but resent having our passions be applied to a wider audience. We also have a really bad habit of only watching shows long after they're out of production. The B5s and Andromedas may be derivative, but as I would guess, part of the reason we can enjoy them is because they try to derive from something we love. Nobody will have Data, Picard, or Spock again, but there's value in trying to mine something new, even if it is just trying to milk dollars out of a starved audience. kaiden@idkfa.com (kaiden) Cognitive Surplus Tue, 06 Aug 2013 14:49:50 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=5337&msg_id=5343 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=5337&msg_id=5339 I always felt like B5, BSG, SG, and the like were just trying to be Star Trek, and capitalize on the same audience that watched ST. Since these didn't really have another television scifi show airing during the same general timeframe to compete against, everyone was just "well, there's nothing else but this shit on, so whatever." I never found any of the ST imitations to ever be compelling. kitacek@idkfa.com (kitacek) Cognitive Surplus Mon, 05 Aug 2013 18:43:44 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=5337&msg_id=5339 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=5337&msg_id=5338 It's weird to me that we continue to enjoy these shows, despite their poor execution, lack of risk-taking, and punishing filler-episode drudgery. Babylon 5, though it's getting better, is still pretty consistently bad, and yet every day at lunch I've been queuing it up while eating a sandwich. Maybe we just have a high tolerance for bullshit? Or we grow numb to it over time? Or, perhaps, the nuggets of awesome, the kernels of the truly intriguing storylines, characters, and science fiction elements are enough to sustain us through seasons of waist-deep inanity? Or maybe we just enjoy thinking on how much better the show would have been if they'd had decent writing? Science fiction is hard to love. But then I still have a signed picture of Worf in his wedding regalia sitting above the wall of my cubicle. kaiden@idkfa.com (kaiden) Cognitive Surplus Mon, 05 Aug 2013 17:05:29 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=5337&msg_id=5338 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=5337&msg_id=5337 Aaaaaaaaaaand finished Voyager. Fuck you Rick Berman. Double fuck you Brannon Braga. I seriously can't believe how much they wasted the potential for what could have been a great show... if they had taken ONE RISK during the entire seven year run. All action, no consequences. That being said, I still gave it a 4/5 on Netflix. Why? It is possibly the highest quality sc-fi show ever produced. Every episode went down like candy. So, while I was entertained, I was just so terribly disappointed because I wanted it to be on par with DS9 (and it could have been!). Perhaps, though, this show is really the most Star Trek of all the Star Trek series (episodic, idealistic). One last note: I think Kate Mulgrew is underrated. She made terrible dialogue almost believable for seven seasons. Not quite a Patrick Stewart, of course, but definitely 2nd behind him. Note, however, that in terms of captains, it goes: JLP>Sisco>Janeway>>Kirk>Archer. In terms of dialogue quality (from the writers), however, it goes: Sisco>Janeway>JLP>Kirk>Archer. Now to mop up the rest of TOS... then the Animated Series, and I'm done! Let the cheese begin... Scrotor@idkfa.com (Scrotor) Cognitive Surplus Mon, 05 Aug 2013 04:35:43 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=5337&msg_id=5337