Amiga.org
Coffee House => Coffee House Boards => CH / Entertainment => Topic started by: KennyR on June 03, 2004, 12:50:51 AM
-
If detective series had been as poorly represented as scifi through the years, Scooby Doo might be a good example of a detective series.
Campy, cliched, unimaginitive - and that's the good ones. :-) Star Trek TNG was good for its day but has aged very badly, and later spinoffs were very poor, with feeble characterisation and weak plots, usually involving some kind of time travel. By the end they just stopped relying on stories to attract viewers and just got buxom birds in tight catsuits to do that. Some unwritten Star Trek law goes that, the more episodes you make, the crapper the theme tune and the duller the characters have to be. And the tighter the catsuit.
I suppose Babylon 5 managed to prop up the scene for a while in the mid 90s, but latex aliens and its degeneration into a war of Light vs. Shadow threw it into the Bad Scifi Cliche Bargain Bin (which Farscape, Crusade, Andromeda and their ilk have never actually crawled out of since the beginning).
Lexx was startlingly original (not to mention pervy), but it eventually got really, REALLY boring too, taking whole series to tell a story that could be done in half an episode. This fate had been suffered the last series of Dr. Who two decades before. When ideas run out, just spread one good idea over six episodes, oh and show more cleavage. It works, honest...
Scifi is a genre where imagination should run wild. Weird dystopias, strange worlds, the struggle of individuals to comprehend their existence in other-worldy societies so alien they're hard to comprehend. In mid-2004, I now find myself in a situation where there is no decent scifi left at all. The days are gone where I could be impressed with a series which involves whole alien species and their diverse socialogical situation being shown as lesser known actors in latex masks all wearing the same clothes. Oh, and time travel stories. Again.
Just as well we have CSI. Pffh.
-
At least we have something decent coming up in the cinema, I Robot. With masteractor Will Smith as main cast. That's bound to make a good combination. Asimov and Smith.
Well, perhaps there is a small chance they haven't screwed up. Has there even been a single decent bigscreen adaption of any Asimov story?
-
Oh, don't get me started!
there are so many excellent writers and stories - Harlan Ellison, Friz Lieber, Blish, Asimov, etc etc etc
and all Holly-Crappy-wood wants to do is make formula, predictable s.h.i.t.
yawn!
I did enjoy B5 because Joe sure made a effort to write stories about charaters. and harlan was in the background giving advice.
one of the reasons I got an amiga was because I could see the possibilities for making science fiction using such a tool. maybe someday.
I mean, I HAVE made important contributions on other peoples projects (obviously), but I'd like to do mine.
-
odin wrote:
At least we have something decent coming up in the cinema, I Robot. With masteractor Will Smith as main cast. That's bound to make a good combination. Asimov and Smith.
:lol:
The closest Asimov ever got to big screen popularity was Star Trek: The Motion Picture, which he co-wrote the story for. It sucked. :)
I know most of Asimov's stories don't suck though. I'd be frustrated beyond belief if I was the man. He must be the most successful scifi writer who's been ignored the most by Hollywood.
-
@ KennyR,
We should have a new Battlestar Galactica series soon. If you didn't see the pilot it's very different.
Chris
-
Now, you can't be serious if you mean that the original Battlestar was good. Great fun in a camp-ish sort of way, but good? Nah :-).
Mind you, one of my earliest childhood memories is playing Battlestar with a 3*2 and 1*3 legobrick stuck on each other acting as Vipers :-).
-
@ odin,
You can't tell Who,s a Cylon.
Chris
-
KennyR wrote:
The closest Asimov ever got to big screen popularity was Star Trek: The Motion Picture, which he co-wrote the story for. It sucked. :)
I know most of Asimov's stories don't suck though. I'd be frustrated beyond belief if I was the man. He must be the most successful scifi writer who's been ignored the most by Hollywood.
I didn't know Asimov was involved in ST Motion Picture! The story wasn't THAT bad IMHO. The film sucked because the acting was poor, the characterizations were awful and the director seemed to be biased toward special effects at the expense of everything else.
Anyway, there have been a great many Sci-Fi writers who deserve to have their work adapted to film. There's the likes of Arthur C Clarke (isn't Rendezvous With Rama sitting unreleased somewhere?), Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle - Lucifer's Hammer would have been the ultimate disaster movie, much better than Deep Impact IMHO.
Isn't there a remake of War Of the Worlds due soon? If it's set in the original Victorian Britain then it will something different...
-
I didn't mind ST1, but it's been a good few years since I've last seen it, and I think I've only seen it once.
TNG was the only decent ST series IMO.
-
odin wrote:
Now, you can't be serious if you mean that the original Battlestar was good. Great fun in a camp-ish sort of way, but good? Nah :-).
Camp as a field full of tents :-)
Do you remember the battle scenes in Battlestar? They used to play the same three or four dogfight sequences in a slightly different order to give the illusion of big battle taking place.
That's directing on the cheap :lol:
-
mikeymike wrote:
I didn't mind ST1, but it's been a good few years since I've last seen it, and I think I've only seen it once.
TNG was the only decent ST series IMO.
no, THE best Star Trek was the first and the original. (what seems to be called "classical", now). They wrote about characters and ideas. and you had a set of really good actors.
People have tried to recapture the magic, and have never quite gotten it.
-
cecilia wrote:
no, THE best Star Trek was the first and the original. (what seems to be called "classical", now). They wrote about characters and ideas. and you had a set of really good actors.
Agreed. The original ST was good for its day because it was really original and had good relationships between characters. The characters themselves weren't given a whole load of history and emotional baggage and then told to try to portray it - Deniro could do that, most actor's cant, and usually try to end up with some boring angry angst-ridden character that softens as the series goes on (i.e. B'ehlana Torres). The ST characters were colourful and eccentric, and well acted. A little mould cast maybe (at first), but they worked and were popular. The baggage was added later to suit.
I'm not sure "real" characters work in scifi, since many of the writers lack real world experience, to be blunt. It would be interesting to see Scorsece direct a scifi film, for instance. ;-)
TNG didn't have such interesting characters, but it still had something - good stories, for a start. Stewart showed his star quality portraying Picard's wisdom and diplomacy, Worf was a good role, Data was an interesting character (if irritating later). But the women were window dressing and Riker and LaForge were rather dull (they obviously tried to make Riker be another Kirk, but the actor wasn't up to it and changed their minds).
TNG has aged though. I still laugh my ass off about the episode where they take on a load of country bumpkins in rags, and the love interest woman among them is wearing eyeshadow and mascara. :lol:
Damn, I'm arguing seriously about Star Trek on an internet forum. Geek alert. :-P
http://immolation.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/greatfx.jpg (http://immolation.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/greatfx.jpg)
-
they obviously tried to make Riker be another Kirk, but the actor wasn't up to it and changed their minds).
What an damning verdict on Jonathan Frakes's acting skills! ("Spaaaaaahhhhhhk! Some. Kind. Of. magneticenergyfield". cue lots of arm waving, slow fighting and pouting at camera. Shirt rips).
With TOS, none of the character's histories were relevent, which made it easy to watch without having to think back to old episodes or follow a drawn out plotline. Nothing else mattered but the story being played out during the 40 minutes of storyline because it was all about plot. Again, it allowed decent writers to come and go (inlcuding Harlan Ellison IIRC) because they didn't have to write around comlex character guidelines. Ironically, the most complex character was the one portrayed as unemotional, thus Spock was the logical choice (groan) to cameo in TNG.
-
http://immolation.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/greatfx.jpg (http://immolation.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/greatfx.jpg)
@KennyR
Is it me or is one of those purple dudes giving Picard the bird?
:-D
-
Damn, I'm arguing seriously about Star Trek on an internet forum. Geek alert.
Maybe you should get a job? :-)
I edited the posts to convert images to URLs to fix page width.
-
PMC wrote:
Is it me or is one of those purple dudes giving Picard the bird?
Well, that's what he gets for criticising their performance of Puttin' On The Ritz on his bridge.
-
QuikSanz wrote:
@ KennyR,
We should have a new Battlestar Galactica series soon. If you didn't see the pilot it's very different.
Chris
I have the Mini in Mpeg format. Anyone that wants a copy or a DVD of it and is willing to pay for shipping and media can have a copy. Don't ask for an FTP link, 'cos both of them are over 3 gigs a piece in size. (when I record, I record with QUALITY). There IS a problem on the second one, but that's due to storage on a slowly failing hard drive, but it's only a split second of quality loss. I was quite pissed when I saw it. :-?
Commercials have been edited. ^_^
-
-
bloodline wrote:
You wouldn't be advocating Piracy would you?
No, I'm advocating high-quality Sci-Fi programming. :-P
Besides, I'm not asking for money in exchange. Simply media costs (since DVDs are expensive) and shipping costs. I thought it was a brilliantly done 're-imagination.'
-
I haven't seen decent Sci-fi on TV since the three first seasons of Babylon 5 was aired on Swedish TV a few years ago. The only Sci-fi we have here today is Star Trek Enterprise (which i have never liked) and Cleopatra 2525(don't even get me started on that one:roll:).
-
whabang wrote:
...and Cleopatra 2525(don't even get me started on that one:roll:).
Cleopatra 2525??? I've never heard of that one. It sounds just awful and now I'm gonna have to snoop around the net for it. :-o
-
it sucks mightily
:pissed:
(if i recall correctly, i may have seen about 10 min of it and ran screaming from the room) :boohoo: :crazy:
-
Set more than five centuries in the future, Cleopatra 2525 follows the exploits of three tough and beautiful women in a world turned upside down. Monstrous, heavily armored airborne creatures known as Baileys rule the surface of Earth. Humanity has been driven underground in order to survive — and to fight back.
Over centuries of Bailey domination, humankind's subterranean universe has grown into an immense labyrinth of shafts, corridors and spaces on countless levels housing distinctly different worlds — from beautifully simulated surface environments to toxic-waste dumps. The human populations inhabiting these domains have evolved independently over hundreds of years, giving rise to a vast array of diverse cultures in the underground grid.
Though most of humanity has abandoned hope of ever reclaiming the surface of Earth, there are individuals within the subterranean world still fiercely committed to that cause. Among these brave souls are the female warriors Hel (Gina Torres, Nebula on Hercules: The Legendary Journeys, Zoë on Firefly and the demonic goddess Jasmine on Angel) and Sarge (Victoria Pratt, Jackie on John Woo's Once a Thief, Shalimar on Mutant X), who rescue former aspiring actress and part-time exotic dancer Cleopatra (Jennifer Sky, the Amazon-wannabe Amarice on Xena: Warrior Princess) from cryogenic stasis. As Hel and Sarge educate Cleopatra in the art of war, she teaches them that looking good won't necessarily hurt their cause.
Infused with high action, drama, humor and spectacular special effects, Cleopatra 2525 was created by acclaimed Xena: Warrior Princess executive producers Rob Tapert and R.J. Stewart, who produced the series in conjunction with Renaissance Pictures (Timecop, Army of Darkness, Hercules and Xena), the production company of Cleopatra 2525 fellow executive producer Sam Raimi.
[Excerpt from SciFi.com]
Yeah, I'm DEFINATELY gonna miss this one. :lol:
-
cecilia wrote:
it sucks mightily
:pissed:
That's not even the start of it! :lol:
-
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20040530&mode=classic
-
I just watched what a friend of mine described as the best Enterprise episode (season 3, the borg one). Wow, they couldn't have used copy and paste to greater effect in that script.
-
@KennyR:
You may wish to ponder the meaning of the following story (http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/treks-end) and understand why there is no longer any decent SF to be found :-).
-
mikeymike wrote:
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20040530&mode=classic
:lol: :lol: :lol:
"You have no chance to survive make your time!"
-
There are some good anime sci-fi series out there if you like that sort of thing. Not on TV mind, you need the broadband :-/
IMO, TV is fairly useless in general. Not just sci-fi. There's one or two comedy programmes that are worth tuning in for, but they are rather weak compared to the standards I grew up with.
You'd think with all the money they pour in to television, combined with the latest amazing technology, TV would absolutely rock! But no... it's {bleep}!
As for sci-fi movies. Apart from the first, and at a push second Matrix films, nothing has really been worth the bother. I heard years ago that the excellent music video director Chris Cunningham (http://www.director-file.com/cunningham/) was going to turn the fantastico Neuromancer into a movie. And I got really excited about that idea. But it came to nothing.
Well, I guess it saves having to hear people say it rips off the Matrix, unaware that the book was published in 1984. A Gibson-esq sci-fi series would be something special, wouldn't it? But not likely.
Did anyone watch Cold Lazarus in the mid-to-late-nineties (I forget when exactly)? I liked that.
Let's see what this new Dr Who turns out like. My money is on pish! If you like sci-fi, best stick with books and repeats of the classics.
-zudo
-
zudobug wrote:
You'd think with all the money they pour in to television, combined with the latest amazing technology, TV would absolutely rock! But no... it's {bleep}!
money has nothing to do with it.
the difficulty is this: the people who have alot (or all) the money have absolutly NO idea how to write or create a good story. they just know how to get alot of money.
the people who can write great stories and act well, and light/make effects/etc have no money.
the artists that succeed are the ones who either are good at business themselves (Hitchcock) or hook up with a clever businessman who is smart enough to let the artist do his/her thing.
the poor artists just hope for the best and expect the worse. and believe me, it's not easy finding businesspeople who know how to deal with artists. managing people is a skill that is lacking in most situations. I've seen it with my own eyes.
-
cecilia,
I totally agree. That's gotta be what is happening. Because I know commercial channels make a lot of money through advertising, and the Beeb is rolling in licence payers money.
It reminds me of an Armando Ianucci sketch with three TV producers singing "we are good at telly" and dancing after coming up with a totally lame idea for a new reality show.
We'll never have a half-decent sci-fi series so long as people continue watching bad TV and supporting the parasites in the industry.
-zudo
-
it's one of the reasons why Public Tv, indie movies, and other art driven groups exist. people have been trying to figure out how to get interesting projects done, because the juggernaut that is hollywood doesn't care.
and there's no point in "blaming" the public. people don't actually want to see garbage. it's more about lazyness. the conglomerates make it easy to digest the cr.ap. go to theater, pay money, see film.
if you want quality or different stuff, you have to go looking for it.
when I first saw the AMiga I was hoping this would help break the stranglehold that the big producers have. it may. I do know that alot of small companies in LA - and other places around the world would not exist if it wasn't for the "revolution" in computers/software.
In fact, a friend of mine just made his own film - all digital. he did most of it himself. shot it, directed it, did most of the editing and color correction, etc. He had me do all the special effects (he's smart enough to know what he can't do! sure sign of a smart person).
:-P
at the moment he's trying to get this film into film festivals. I haven't heard much from him and I wish him luck, because doing something like this is an uphill effort.
But, if people don't do their own thing, nothing unique or interesting will ever get done.
this issue is quite old, btw. even a hundred years ago many of the most famous actors of the day got together and created United Artists. It was originally a group for artists trying to make great films.
-
I personally liked farscape, but the last season was not very good... TNG is my favorite though.
-
I, for one, can't wait for Star Wreck (http://www.starwreck.com/) to get finished :-).
-
whabang wrote:
I haven't seen decent Sci-fi on TV since the three first seasons of Babylon 5 was aired on Swedish TV a few years ago. The only Sci-fi we have here today is Star Trek Enterprise (which i have never liked) and Cleopatra 2525(don't even get me started on that one:roll:).
Have you missed Andromeda? TV4 is doing reruns. I like it but then I´m not looking anything serious when I watch tv.
Startreks(i have only seen voyager and enterprise) appeal to me has always been comedy.
Maybe I should look into Babylon5, i like jms comics.
Yes he is writing comics now :-D Spiderman and Supreme Power.
-
Have you missed Andromeda? TV4 is doing reruns.
GAAAH! The horror! :-o
-
Ah, Captain Dylan 'Hercules' Hunt. Or as I like to call him, The Big 'C'.
I couldn't get into Andromeda. My former housemate watched it so I'd sometimes sit down and try it out, but it seems like another one of those "if we put some beautiful half-naked women in, maybe no-one will notice how much this sucks" kinda shows.
Some nice ideas, but every episode I saw started off with them going into some sort of epic war thats been building up for centuries, only to have it all sorted out and finished by end of the same episode. "Onwards to our next massive battle! or maybe a planet full of half-naked beautiful women... depending how the mood takes us."
[edit] LOL. I take it all back. I just remembered my favourite quote from the show which I have forged in my memory (sorry if it's a bit wrong.) Dunno which ep exactly this is from.
Beka: "where did you get all the candles?"
Tyr: "I rendered them from the fat of my enemies."
:lol:
Good line!
-zudo
-
cecilia wrote:
it's one of the reasons why Public Tv, indie movies, and other art driven groups exist. people have been trying to figure out how to get interesting projects done, because the juggernaut that is hollywood doesn't care.
and there's no point in "blaming" the public. people don't actually want to see garbage. it's more about lazyness. the conglomerates make it easy to digest the cr.ap. go to theater, pay money, see film.
if you want quality or different stuff, you have to go looking for it.
I'm not sure I agree with this all the way. I think it is the other way around. My girlfriend and I had a little discussion about theater admission fares after seeing the visually spectacular but storywise extremely weak Van Helsing. She remarked people want to be entertained after a stressful day---and entertainment rules out engaging your brain in difficult stories and Deep Thought About Life's Truths. I think she has a point. Hollywood cares a lot about this and knows the difference like no other. (They make billions of dollars out of it, don't they?)
It's not Hollywood that's the problem, it's the people. They are lazy and uncaring, and if what they as a whole want what a genuine artist can only consider to be crap, then so be it: crap is what they'll get. Think the romantic love novellas you buy at the supermarket checkout versus soul-wrenching poetry. Think the umpteenth FPS versus textual adventures, the latter perhaps in a multi-user setting. Humans are dumb animals with rather basic needs and desires, and there's no changing that (for now).
I agree with you that if you want quality, you need to go out and look for it. But the few times I did that my stomach did somersaults at the complete nonsense I was presented. Think Kubrick movies, or from that famous Japanese director whose name slipped my mind (Koba-something?). Each time I've come to the conclusion they make crap (and bad crap at that) just like everybody else. Only now it's 'artistic' crap, and different crap yardsticks are invoked to disguise the fact that the Masters may have gotten it dead wrong.
So when I was willing to engage higher brain functions, I found the intellectual challenge to be sorely lacking. It has strengthened my opinion that my girlfriend was right. For now there seems to be a nomansland between Hollywood crap and artistic 'quality' people find hard to explore.
-
But the few times I did that my stomach did somersaults at the complete nonsense I was presented. Think Kubrick movies, or from that famous Japanese director whose name slipped my mind (Koba-something?). Each time I've come to the conclusion they make crap (and bad crap at that) just like everybody else. Only now it's 'artistic' crap, and different crap yardsticks are invoked to disguise the fact that the Masters may have gotten it dead wrong.
if you can't understand and appreciate Kubrick - and other's - than this is a problem with you. not Kubrick.
I GET him. he is So far above the sh.it that comes out of hollywood, he shouldn't even be in the same sentence.
-----------
to get back to the point of this thread, however, I have no problem with mindless entertainment. I enjoy childish nonsense all the time. it's important for one's mental health to get out of one's problems.
my issue with the giant corporations is that they don't encourage variety. they can't SEE talent and nurture it. yes, I'm looking at the problem from the other end (than you, the consumer), but i think it's useful to see that point of view.
-
if you can't understand and appreciate Kubrick - and other's - than this is a problem with you. not Kubrick.
I GET him. he is So far above the sh.it that comes out of hollywood, he shouldn't even be in the same sentence.
Hear hear. Kubrick has made some quality films.
-
Troy : How Hollywood Kills Stories
By
Cathy Lynn Pagano (http://opednews.com/pagano_060204_troy.htm)
a really interesting view on this film (which I didn't see) and what is going on in the middle east.
-
First the author tries to convince us that Homer's entire saga was written to illustrate the follies of war. Perhaps. I would rather say that it was written to illustrate the irrationality of man and utter humanity of the Greek gods: they started the war because of a petty argument over beauty. If you end the story where the original Iliad ends, she might have had a point. If you include Troy's capture, it highlights man's shrewdness. If you then tell what happened to Agamemnon (who was murdered by his wife on suspicion of adultery with a captive war slave) you can think that it is a great tragedy to die like that. If you include Ulysses' epic story, it becomes a tribute to steadfastness and an unyielding resolve never to give up despite very grim odds.
Then she complains that the movie does not convey the same meaning as the story would in ancient times---unfortunately, that is inevitable. Times have changed. We simply do not believe in the Greek gods any longer, for example. We do not know how it felt to have a historical enemy as the Trojans (and later on, the Persians). We are no longer a society in which war plays an important part. In addition, the argument falls flat on its face when she tries to involve The Passion of the Christ: that story would have conveyed a completely different meaning in the first century, namely of freedom from Roman oppression for the Jewish people. So why should the Iliad be rendered true? (She also has some really weird ideas about the Iliad and Odyssee forming the cornerstone of Greek identity, thus Greek democracy, and thus our modern society. I think she is overestimating their influence considerably.)
And then the most perverse, most revolting argument in the entire essay is unleashed: since Troy was the product of Hollywood, its original meaning was perverted as per usual. Thus a golden opportunity to start a national debate on the 'follies of war' was missed, and thus to learn from historical mistakes, and thus to critically evaluate the Bush administration's handling of the entire post-9/11 situation. This includes the Iraq invasion. In fact, this argument was the sole reason she wrote the essay. Would she have included The Passion's original meaning to this debate, I wonder. Yes, you definitely need to be a 'Jungian psychotherapist' in order to come up with such a chain of cause and effect. You really don't need to ride on the crest of a Hollywood movie wave to start national debates.
I am a little curious why you pointed us to that article, though. Everyone knows that movies (especially Hollywood ones) very rarely follow the book or historical facts to the letter. So...?
-
I am a little curious why you pointed us to that article, though. Everyone knows that movies (especially Hollywood ones) very rarely follow the book or historical facts to the letter. So...?
THAT IS the reason I posted this link.
-
I think the movie's also particularly prudish considering the sources they used :lol:
plus there ain't much gods in it, from what I heard about it, and saw in the previews of it, while it was the primary aspect of the Ilios.
-
cecilia wrote:
THAT IS the reason I posted this link.
You could have a point---but since Hollywood doesn't advertise that its movies are accurate retellings, it is a weak one. Instead, movies are 'based on actual events'. Or 'the story comes to life on a screen near you'. There are a few more. You have to admit that the marketeer who thought those up was a genius at his profession.
If you want accuracy, you should seek out a different form of movie: a documentary :-). (And sometimes not even that, but the cold, hard facts written down in the scientific literature.)
-
Cymric wrote:
I'm not sure I agree with this all the way. I think it is the other way around. My girlfriend and I had a little discussion about theater admission fares after seeing the visually spectacular but storywise extremely weak Van Helsing. She remarked people want to be entertained after a stressful day---and entertainment rules out engaging your brain in difficult stories and Deep Thought About Life's Truths. I think she has a point. Hollywood cares a lot about this and knows the difference like no other. (They make billions of dollars out of it, don't they?)
I think the "people only want dumb entertainment" mantra is a rather empty one. People are usually portrayed en-mass as a non-discriminating lowest common denominator mob, who will suck up any rubbish as long as it has enough special effects. Make unoriginal crap, hype it, show it, get the money. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Yet this doesn't seem to be always true. The new Matrix movies, for instance, and the new Star Wars ones - it didn't take film critics for people to judge those as crap. Could it be that even tired, working people want more than boom boom bang bang? These films were successes, but only because of hype. No-one will remember them fondly.
Without going to the other end of the scale and believing everyone will appreciate films like Solyaris and 2001: A Space Odyssey, or god forbid those artsy fartsy films (in my view usually pretentious, not clever), it does indeed seem like people do appreciate good scifi. This appreciation often seems to translate into pure dollars. In the case of Jackson's Lord of the Rings, even with the maimed story, the films are a massive commercial success.
Star Trek viewing figures have crashed, despite the obvious masturbation-bait to desperately grab more. Unoriginality and banality are directly to blame. Seems the masses do actually know good sci-fi when they know it - at least, "okay" sci-fi. :) Star Trek is tired and shows it, and people do notice. Even 14 year olds. :)
-
If you want something a bit darker and offbeat than the rest, try LEXX: The Dark Zone
I love it :)
-
Hum,
the best thing recently i`ve watched has been "Mystery Science Theater 3000"...
(Stupid link (http://www.mst3kinfo.com/))
Anybody else watch it?
(Ahh, better link (http://www.tvtome.com/MysteryScienceTheater3000/))
-
yes, i do love MST. there's nothing quite as fun as a really BAD movie! :lol:
-
blobrana wrote:
Hum,
the best thing recently i`ve watched has been "Mystery Science Theater 3000"...
If it were on here ever, I've only ever seen a feature-length one I think, it was pretty funny.
-
They used to show it on the sci-fi channel all the time, i think it got cancelled about the time digital came around. Oh and as for good sci-fi im having a hard enough time finding any sci-fi on tv, its all cop and forensic shows.
-
Btw, if anyone does see MST3k on UK television, please tell me!
(got Sky)