And the downward spiral continues....

[Dotarian]

I-Man? Cancelled.
Farscape? Cancelled.
BSG? Cancelled.
Dreseden? Cancelled.
SG1? Cancelled.
Atlantis? Cancelled.

See a pattern here? I'm surprised they let Babylon 5 run for a full 5 seasons (and they weren't sure they'd get that). Andromeda and Earth: Final Conflict were nerfed up by SciFi, taking good storylines and ruining them before killing the shows.

SciFi had something good. I used to look forward to SciFi Fridays. Now, there's nothing, and the best channel on cable now panders to beer-swilling rednecks with WWE and cheap zombie flicks that had a budget of 200 bucks (and two kegs of beer).

Good SciFi is hard to find, but not THAT hard. Not only did this channel cancel or screw up so many good shows, they also neglected to pick up really good shows that other channels dropped (Jericho, Firefly, Journeman, etc...) There IS a market for good SciFi, and instead of branching out to become the premier provider for quality content, SciFi chases the buck and panders to the lowbrow masses.

Well, I guess there's still Terminator, and some good shows on the Beeb. Eureka's good for the occasional laugh (or bouts of insomnia).

Guess I'll have to start investing more in the only thing that's never let me down - good books.

Goodbye, Scifi. We hardly knew 'ye...

[Falcon 304]

I'm fairly certain it was the intention for BSG to go as long as it is (4 seasons?). The Dreseden Files weren't all that great. While I didn't jump on the SG train until AFTER SG1 was done airing new episodes, as much as I would have like for them to go on forever, they probably only had one good season left in them and it would then falter (though some would say that happened after S7/8). SGA however is still rising in viewing numbers, and S6 would probably have been it's peak, kinda following the pattern of SG1.

Sanctuary is coming at the mid season break for SGA and will be AMAZING.

[MediaSavant]

Andromeda and Earth: Final Conflict were nerfed up by SciFi, taking good storylines and ruining them before killing the shows.

Those shows were syndicated and SciFi had nothing to do with them except to air their reruns after their syndicated runs ended. (They were also quite bad)

All TV shows get canceled eventually. Some of the shows on your list lasted five or more seasons, which is considered a VERY GOOD run. SG-1's ten seasons is something very few TV shows get.

BSG's getting a set ending is the best thing that happened to it because it's gotten really tight in terms of story-telling.

All networks cancel shows and some networks cancel shows a lot faster than SciFi does.

If your point is that SciFi cancels shows more than any other network does, you haven't proven it.

[Daniel Jackson]

I-Man? Cancelled.

Never heard of it.

Farscape? Cancelled.

That show was freaky. I'm surprised it lasted four years and two TV movies.

BSG? Cancelled.

The show is a joke. It's boring and depressing. How is this entertainment? Good riddens!

Dreseden? Cancelled.

Lame. Not surprised it was cancelled.

SG1? Cancelled.

Dude... it had a ten-year run. Ten years is not enough?

Atlantis? Cancelled.

Annoying, yes. However, it had a five-year run and will be followed with a movie, so what's the problem? Further, there will be a third show to watch in summer 2009. We can watch that.

See a pattern here?

Yes. All shows inevitably end. If not by the producers, then by the network.

If you want to watch something good, watch Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles.

[Mike272]

I'm fairly certain it was the intention for BSG to go as long as it is (4 seasons?). The Dreseden Files weren't all that great. While I didn't jump on the SG train until AFTER SG1 was done airing new episodes, as much as I would have like for them to go on forever, they probably only had one good season left in them and it would then falter (though some would say that happened after S7/8). SGA however is still rising in viewing numbers, and S6 would probably have been it's peak, kinda following the pattern of SG1.

Sanctuary is coming at the mid season break for SGA and will be AMAZING.

True, but it still won't be Stargate...

[Briangate78]

Those shows were syndicated and SciFi had nothing to do with them except to air their reruns after their syndicated runs ended. (They were also quite bad)

All TV shows get canceled eventually. Some of the shows on your list lasted five or more seasons, which is considered a VERY GOOD run. SG-1's ten seasons is something very few TV shows get.

BSG's getting a set ending is the best thing that happened to it because it's gotten really tight in terms of story-telling.

All networks cancel shows and some networks cancel shows a lot faster than SciFi does.

If your point is that SciFi cancels shows more than any other network does, you haven't proven it.

yeah 5 seasons is considered very good. SGA is even getting movies to air on SCI FI. So it is defintley a good run. I really wanted one more season though.

[Col.Foley]

Never heard of it.


That show was freaky. I'm surprised it lasted four years and two TV movies.


The show is a joke. It's boring and depressing. How is this entertainment? Good riddens!


Lame. Not surprised it was cancelled.


Dude... it had a ten-year run. Ten years is not enough?


Annoying, yes. However, it had a five-year run and will be followed with a movie, so what's the problem? Further, there will be a third show to watch in summer 2009. We can watch that.


Yes. All shows inevitably end. If not by the producers, then by the network.

If you want to watch something good, watch Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles.

Agreed about galactica.

[Dotarian]

Well, all I can say is that there's cheap SciFi (which could be good), there's GOOD SciFi, and there's GREAT SciFi. What makes the difference? Special effects? Pricey, pampered overpaid actors? No, WRITING AND STORYLINES!

Babylon 5 is arguably the best "TV" SciFi series ever made, at least for those who like good story (for those that don't, put Starship Troopers in your DVD player on endless loop). B5 is GREAT because the story was well-planned out, the characters well developed, and because Mike Strazyinski (sp?) didn't let anyone muck around with his story. Start to finish, it was made exactly the way he intended it to be made, and it was like reading a well-written series of books. The special effects were, for that time, extremely well done, but it was the story and the character development that made it truly great.

BSG is cut from the same cloth. All the "original series" vs. "new series" arguments are bunk. They are different shows, made from different perspectives, for different audiences. The "new" BSG is a classic "space opera", and the writers have spent a lot of time and effort on the storyline and character development. That's what makes it truly great.

Great shows and series are ones you have to invest yourself in. Just like good books. B5 had "it"; BSG has it; Dresden was on its way to having it, as was Journeyman (on another channel). My personal opinion is that people who can't appreciate how good such shows are are EXACTLY the type of audience the SciFi mongos are targeting with "Zombie Cheerleaders in Space" and Mini-Max vs. the Hulking Ape in WWE.

Good shows don't have to rely as much on a well developed storyline if their aim is comedic instead of dramatic. Farscape and Invisible Man were perfect examples (although Farscape also had a great storyline for anyone that bothered to try and find it).

I'll also agree that there's a time for everything to end. SG1 was nearing its end, but the writers had consistently shown an ability to reinvent the storyline and take it in new directions. The downfall for SG1 is that nobody could replace Richard Dean Anderson for "comedic seriousness", although Ben Browder made a good attempt. The Ori storyline was brilliant, and in the larger scheme of things was the perfect ending for the show; it all started with the Stargate built by the Lanteans. It should have had the time to end with the Lanteans and the Ori (and the Wraith as well). But they rushed the ending because of "budget constraints", and completely hosed the ending of a great show.

The same thing happened to Andromeda; a hasty and poor conclusion to the storyline (just where were the Vedrans all this time - just waiting for Trance's sun to show up? Why not arrive sooner?)

Back to B5: the writer had a 5-year cycle, and was given 5 years to tell the story. It was complete and whole on its own (although the spinoff wasn't as good). SG1 was killed off too soon. Atlantis is going down the same path. Farscape suffered a similar fate (and was the first to get a mini-series to try and tidy things up after a botched ending). SG1 got similar treatment.

Ultimately, though, it just sucks because there's no committment on the part of the studio to see a project through to the end of the story. Imagine, for a moment, the brilliance of the initial scene in the B5 pilot where Kosh greets Sinclair as "Intlz'ar Valen" (sp?) You could come away with the shallow impression that this was some Vorlon gobbledegook cooked up by the writers. But three years later, you understand just how far JMS's brillance was when you discover how prophetic that one statement was. Three years later!

Nobody writes like that anymore, because if they do they get cancelled because testosterone-poisoned shallow-minded action junkies can't get their "fix". People that hate BSG, Dresden, and Journeyman examples. Knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers will watch two hours of a giant mutant rat eating downtown Seattle, but they won't take the time to appreciate a well written story. But that's the demographic SciFi is going for, so we get cheap movies that wouldn't be shown on any other channel if they were offered for free, and Wrestling, and such. There isn't a place anymore for good shows, I guess, because those of us that enjoy a truly good "story" don't buy enough beer and Viagra after watching the commercials.

Too bad, SciFi could have taken the high road, and developed itself into the leading producer and marketer of quality genre programming. But they didn't and we all lose. And before you say it can't be done, who would have thought that three of the most popular channels on cable would be National Geographic, The History Channel, and Animal Planet? Or how about HGTV and all fifteen variants of "this old house" that pass for original programming? They are successful in their niche, and there's no reason SciFi couldn't have been successful as well. There are no fans more loyal or rabid than SciFi/Fantasy buffs, yet the SciFi channel chose to turn their backs on us and become a worse channel than "TV Land".

Too bad. It could have been a good thing. There were flashes of brilliance in BSG and Invisible Man. There was one good run with SG1, only to have it suddenly end like a favorite old uncle that is suddenly found dead in his bed. Ultimately, all there was for us were "flashes", and Universe likely won't be any better; it could be truly good, but SciFi will pull the plug the moment they can't turn a dime on it. Business? Maybe. But sometimes investing in a good story over time can build a larger and more devoted fan base. SciFi won't do that though, because they never met a cheap zombie movie they didn't like.

Sorry for the diatribe, but it really hacks me off that a channel with so much potential for truly pushing the envelope decided to whore themselves out instead. I mean, for gawd's sake if HGTV can be a raging success with mediocre programming, why can't SciFi commit to GOOD programming and be even larger? Does anyone really think that there are more people who like "flaming" designers and stagers (what the hell is a "stager"?) than there are SciFi fans who crave good programming? If Meerkat Manor can be successful, why not Atlantis?

Maybe, lame as many of those shows are, maybe the bigwigs at those channels know EXACTLY what their audience wants, and gives it to them, and are rewarded with excellent ratings. Then again, maybe that's why SciFi smoked some bad crack and went with wresting over BSG - higher ratings, even if it meant turning their backs on their core audience in favor of Bubba and the six-pack-a-night crowd.

Oh well. At least Asimov, Heinlein, SR Donaldson, Marion Zimmer Bradley, and Katheryn Kurtz won't let me down.

Dotarian


PS: just for the record, I also love Starship Troopers. It's a pure, good-ole fashioned space war flick. Not much of a storyline, but then again it isn't meant to have one. It's a good movie because it's exactly what it was intended to be; and if you read the book, it's even more enjoyable.

[Buck32]

Never heard of it.


That show was freaky. I'm surprised it lasted four years and two TV movies.


The show is a joke. It's boring and depressing. How is this entertainment? Good riddens!


Lame. Not surprised it was cancelled.


Dude... it had a ten-year run. Ten years is not enough?


Annoying, yes. However, it had a five-year run and will be followed with a movie, so what's the problem? Further, there will be a third show to watch in summer 2009. We can watch that.


Yes. All shows inevitably end. If not by the producers, then by the network.

If you want to watch something good, watch Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles.

LMFAO, especially at the last comment!!!!

[Dotarian]

Sanctuary is coming at the mid season break for SGA and will be AMAZING.

Maybe. I hope so. Or maybe it'll be the next "New Amsterdam"; great story, great acting, potential for a very intersting multi-year story arc, but cancelled in favor of Transsexual Midget Wrestling, followed by a 30-minute infomercial for Ron Popiel's latest worthless piece of junk.

I have all the faith in the world that SciFi will do whatever they have to to make a quick buck, and I have NO faith that they will invest the time and resources necessary to develop a good story, thereby cultivating a loyal and large fan base. If a show doesn't come gift-wrapped with an instant 20 percent market share, then it'll be replaced with reruns of Miami Vice and 10-minute Enzyte male "enhancement" commercials.

Blech. If I wasn't so devoted to BSG and SGA, I wouldn't even have SciFi in my programmed list of favorite channels.

I truly hope that Sanctuary does well. I'm also looking forward to Dollhouse and one other show whose name escapes me at the moment. But I'll also watch these shows with the hesitancy of a dog that's been kicked one too many times; Will SciFi pull the plug just as I become "invested" in the storylne? Will Dollhouse follow Wedon's other fantastically successful failure, Firefly? I just don't know if I can bring myself to "trust" SciFi anymore. Heck, as much as I looked forward to the show, I refused to watch Hero's until I was sure it wouldn't be cancelled and replaced with "Three Bald Men and the Chihuahua". When Heros finally got picked up for a longer-term run, I rabidly caught up on the series via DVD, and now I can't wait for the fall shows to start. Same with House.

No, I fear the success of Sanctuary, because the mongos at SciFi will find some way to muck it up. Babylon 5 was the exception to the rule, and may never happen again.

Just my opinion...

Dotarian

[Dotarian]

I-Man - Never heard of it...

You name yourself "Daniel Jackson", have over 2000 posts here, elaborate in depth about the merits (or lack thereof) of various SciFi shows, yet you have never heard of "The Invisible Man" series?

Please hand in your ManCard at the door, and send your official SciFi geek sweatshirt back to our club HQ after you've had it cleaned.

Dotarian

[Randy_Watson]

[COLOR="Blue"]Never heard of it.


That show was freaky. I'm surprised it lasted four years and two TV movies.

Yeah, Farscape was freaky. I'm surprised it lasted that long, but am very happy it did (though saying Two TV movies is misleading, as it was really just one mini-series.)

And I too don't know what I-man is. (ok, now I see Invisible Man. I think Iron Man screwed me up)

[Col.Foley]

Well, all I can say is that there's cheap SciFi (which could be good), there's GOOD SciFi, and there's GREAT SciFi. What makes the difference? Special effects? Pricey, pampered overpaid actors? No, WRITING AND STORYLINES!

Babylon 5 is arguably the best "TV" SciFi series ever made, at least for those who like good story (for those that don't, put Starship Troopers in your DVD player on endless loop). B5 is GREAT because the story was well-planned out, the characters well developed, and because Mike Strazyinski (sp?) didn't let anyone muck around with his story. Start to finish, it was made exactly the way he intended it to be made, and it was like reading a well-written series of books. The special effects were, for that time, extremely well done, but it was the story and the character development that made it truly great.

BSG is cut from the same cloth. All the "original series" vs. "new series" arguments are bunk. They are different shows, made from different perspectives, for different audiences. The "new" BSG is a classic "space opera", and the writers have spent a lot of time and effort on the storyline and character development. That's what makes it truly great.

Great shows and series are ones you have to invest yourself in. Just like good books. B5 had "it"; BSG has it; Dresden was on its way to having it, as was Journeyman (on another channel). My personal opinion is that people who can't appreciate how good such shows are are EXACTLY the type of audience the SciFi mongos are targeting with "Zombie Cheerleaders in Space" and Mini-Max vs. the Hulking Ape in WWE.

Good shows don't have to rely as much on a well developed storyline if their aim is comedic instead of dramatic. Farscape and Invisible Man were perfect examples (although Farscape also had a great storyline for anyone that bothered to try and find it).

I'll also agree that there's a time for everything to end. SG1 was nearing its end, but the writers had consistently shown an ability to reinvent the storyline and take it in new directions. The downfall for SG1 is that nobody could replace Richard Dean Anderson for "comedic seriousness", although Ben Browder made a good attempt. The Ori storyline was brilliant, and in the larger scheme of things was the perfect ending for the show; it all started with the Stargate built by the Lanteans. It should have had the time to end with the Lanteans and the Ori (and the Wraith as well). But they rushed the ending because of "budget constraints", and completely hosed the ending of a great show.

The same thing happened to Andromeda; a hasty and poor conclusion to the storyline (just where were the Vedrans all this time - just waiting for Trance's sun to show up? Why not arrive sooner?)

Back to B5: the writer had a 5-year cycle, and was given 5 years to tell the story. It was complete and whole on its own (although the spinoff wasn't as good). SG1 was killed off too soon. Atlantis is going down the same path. Farscape suffered a similar fate (and was the first to get a mini-series to try and tidy things up after a botched ending). SG1 got similar treatment.

Ultimately, though, it just sucks because there's no committment on the part of the studio to see a project through to the end of the story. Imagine, for a moment, the brilliance of the initial scene in the B5 pilot where Kosh greets Sinclair as "Intlz'ar Valen" (sp?) You could come away with the shallow impression that this was some Vorlon gobbledegook cooked up by the writers. But three years later, you understand just how far JMS's brillance was when you discover how prophetic that one statement was. Three years later!

Nobody writes like that anymore, because if they do they get cancelled because testosterone-poisoned shallow-minded action junkies can't get their "fix". People that hate BSG, Dresden, and Journeyman examples. Knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers will watch two hours of a giant mutant rat eating downtown Seattle, but they won't take the time to appreciate a well written story. But that's the demographic SciFi is going for, so we get cheap movies that wouldn't be shown on any other channel if they were offered for free, and Wrestling, and such. There isn't a place anymore for good shows, I guess, because those of us that enjoy a truly good "story" don't buy enough beer and Viagra after watching the commercials.

Too bad, SciFi could have taken the high road, and developed itself into the leading producer and marketer of quality genre programming. But they didn't and we all lose. And before you say it can't be done, who would have thought that three of the most popular channels on cable would be National Geographic, The History Channel, and Animal Planet? Or how about HGTV and all fifteen variants of "this old house" that pass for original programming? They are successful in their niche, and there's no reason SciFi couldn't have been successful as well. There are no fans more loyal or rabid than SciFi/Fantasy buffs, yet the SciFi channel chose to turn their backs on us and become a worse channel than "TV Land".

Too bad. It could have been a good thing. There were flashes of brilliance in BSG and Invisible Man. There was one good run with SG1, only to have it suddenly end like a favorite old uncle that is suddenly found dead in his bed. Ultimately, all there was for us were "flashes", and Universe likely won't be any better; it could be truly good, but SciFi will pull the plug the moment they can't turn a dime on it. Business? Maybe. But sometimes investing in a good story over time can build a larger and more devoted fan base. SciFi won't do that though, because they never met a cheap zombie movie they didn't like.

Sorry for the diatribe, but it really hacks me off that a channel with so much potential for truly pushing the envelope decided to whore themselves out instead. I mean, for gawd's sake if HGTV can be a raging success with mediocre programming, why can't SciFi commit to GOOD programming and be even larger? Does anyone really think that there are more people who like "flaming" designers and stagers (what the hell is a "stager"?) than there are SciFi fans who crave good programming? If Meerkat Manor can be successful, why not Atlantis?

Maybe, lame as many of those shows are, maybe the bigwigs at those channels know EXACTLY what their audience wants, and gives it to them, and are rewarded with excellent ratings. Then again, maybe that's why SciFi smoked some bad crack and went with wresting over BSG - higher ratings, even if it meant turning their backs on their core audience in favor of Bubba and the six-pack-a-night crowd.

Oh well. At least Asimov, Heinlein, SR Donaldson, Marion Zimmer Bradley, and Katheryn Kurtz won't let me down.

Dotarian


PS: just for the record, I also love Starship Troopers. It's a pure, good-ole fashioned space war flick. Not much of a storyline, but then again it isn't meant to have one. It's a good movie because it's exactly what it was intended to be; and if you read the book, it's even more enjoyable.

Let me say. Wonderful job posting, this was a true joy to read, and you put a lot of thought into it. And I agree with most of your points, but I still have problems with it that I feel I want to adress.
First off. I loved Babylon 5, I worship JMS and his writing, and he may be the true great writer of our age, one of them any way. I do prefer SG-1, because that is to me pure FUN, good old adventure, with your occasional great serious moment. But Babylon 5 had it all.
But Galactica has barely done it for me. I do acknowlege the fact that it tried to be an epic, and tried to be a great series. But it feel flat, accept for a few great moments over the series. And there are three things that make this a failed series.
One, the despair. Babylon 5, and SG are about hope, and good v evil, and ideology. Babylon 5 did have its moments of despair, but it had an underlying theme of hope, and 'faith manages' to it. That carried it on. This show truly had everything in it, so many themes of both hope and despair, of good and evil, of lesser and greater nature to humanity. BSG does not have this. I feel. Sure, it does have its occasional great moment of hope. But Humanity is portrayed as being an extremly dirty species. Whether this is realistic or not....regardless, and even during those moments of hope. There is always an underlying moment of despair in it.
Two, The realigion. The thing about Gate, and B5 to an extent is it did not spend too much time foccusing on one thing. It was spread out amongest many relevant, and theoretical topics. BSG does not do this. BSG has had such a long look at realigion, in fact it may almost be the driving force of the show...which does not make it as good as the other two shows.
Three. BSG does do its fair share of pandering to the younger demographic. Through the sex, or the borderline sex, or what ever. They also spend way too much time on this.
However, I am finding I am appreciating the series a little more the older I get.
BSG is to me, not a good series. Now this is merely my opinion, and I have given it a good deal of thought on the subject of why I do not like it. I realize that it does have a story. But it does not have one that I like. So merely a story alone may not do it for some smart and intelligent fans, they may just prefer another side of another story. A different story.
Oh, and PS. Not to you, but in general. The Wresitling fans, and the Zombie fans can have their movies.....but not on our Sci-Fi!

[Dotarian]

Let me say. Wonderful job posting, this was a true joy to read, and you put a lot of thought into it. And I agree with most of your points, but I still have problems with it that I feel I want to adress.
First off. I loved Babylon 5, I worship JMS and his writing, and he may be the true great writer of our age, one of them any way. I do prefer SG-1, because that is to me pure FUN, good old adventure, with your occasional great serious moment. But Babylon 5 had it all.
But Galactica has barely done it for me. I do acknowlege the fact that it tried to be an epic, and tried to be a great series. But it feel flat, accept for a few great moments over the series. And there are three things that make this a failed series.
One, the despair. Babylon 5, and SG are about hope, and good v evil, and ideology. Babylon 5 did have its moments of despair, but it had an underlying theme of hope, and 'faith manages' to it. That carried it on. This show truly had everything in it, so many themes of both hope and despair, of good and evil, of lesser and greater nature to humanity. BSG does not have this. I feel. Sure, it does have its occasional great moment of hope. But Humanity is portrayed as being an extremly dirty species. Whether this is realistic or not....regardless, and even during those moments of hope. There is always an underlying moment of despair in it.
Two, The realigion. The thing about Gate, and B5 to an extent is it did not spend too much time foccusing on one thing. It was spread out amongest many relevant, and theoretical topics. BSG does not do this. BSG has had such a long look at realigion, in fact it may almost be the driving force of the show...which does not make it as good as the other two shows.
Three. BSG does do its fair share of pandering to the younger demographic. Through the sex, or the borderline sex, or what ever. They also spend way too much time on this.
However, I am finding I am appreciating the series a little more the older I get.
BSG is to me, not a good series. Now this is merely my opinion, and I have given it a good deal of thought on the subject of why I do not like it. I realize that it does have a story. But it does not have one that I like. So merely a story alone may not do it for some smart and intelligent fans, they may just prefer another side of another story. A different story.
Oh, and PS. Not to you, but in general. The Wresitling fans, and the Zombie fans can have their movies.....but not on our Sci-Fi!

Funny you should couch BSG in those terms. First, I appreciate what you said about BSG having a story, but not a story that you like. It's the same with good books. While I'm a huge fan of Stephen R. Donaldson's "Thomas Covenent the Unbeliever" series, I really couldn't bring myself to read his "Gap" series - even though it s universally regarded by many as being just as good as his Covenant books. I just didn't like the story; that didn't make it bad, just not appealing to me. Contrast that with the fifteen thousandth Xanth novel from Piers Anthony, which to me is total flatulance from beginning to end (although his Incarnations of Immortality was brilliant).

BSG is, to me, a very good story. I also appreciate the darkness and despair in it because (SOAPBOX WARNING!) it parallels how I feel about the world in general right now. I can appreciate BSG as being a parallel storyline to the real-world garbage going in right now; BSG is simply a reflection of the fact that "real" Humanity is a pretty "dirty" species. Look at what happened in Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Cambodia, Nazi Germany. Maybe there's some truth to what the other Boomer said; "Maybe the answer is that you don't deserve to survive as a species... I can deal with that.

I can also agree about the whole religion thing. I once heard my dad cussing out a newspaper review of a movie he really liked, saying the so-called "critic" had no idea of what he was talking about, and then went on to describe in detail just how severe the critic's case of cranio-rectal insertion syndrome was. I'd never seen him like that before, and when I asked he replied "these yahoos have no idea of what amusement is all about. From the Latin prefix "a", meaning "not", and "muse", meaning "think or ponder". Put it together, and if something is amusing you aren't supposed to have to think very hard to enjoy it. Yet the critics will pan a movie because they noticed the wrong color filter on a lighting scheme that 99.99 percent of the rest of us wouldn't notice.

But back to the religion thing. BSG is dark; it's supposed to be. But it's also supposed to be entertaining, and it's amusement. So, if there isn't something fun about the show to keep us engaged, then we start to drift. Maybe I'm more of a fanboy than most, but I appreciate the hard-line story being told, and the topics and grander ideas behind the storylinel. That said, I also admit that it's probably not as entertaining as it could (or should) be for a TV series being produced as a revenue vehicle for the SciFi mongos. There's always room for improvement, and with BSG this is one area.

The caveat is this, though: the religion may end up being a crucial part of the Cylon end-game. The way that show is being produced, I have no idea how it will end, or what will be revealed. Just like the Mendez paintings in Heros, or the cryptic Vorlon dialog in B5, it may be that the whole religion aspect is a crucial part of the overall storyline that isn't apparant right now.

Oh, and PS. Not to you, but in general. The Wresitling fans, and the Zombie fans can have their movies.....but not on our Sci-Fi!

Don't they already have a channel for that? SpikeTV? I'm as much of a MMA fan as the next person (followed UFC from the beginning with Royce Gracie and Dan Severn). Maybe SciFi should buy Spike, move the zombie cheerleaders and WWE over to that channel, and then concentrate on quality programming again? We can dream, can't we?

Dotarian

[Daniel Jackson]

You name yourself "Daniel Jackson", have over 2000 posts here, elaborate in depth about the merits (or lack thereof) of various SciFi shows, yet you have never heard of "The Invisible Man" series?

Excuse me, but I did not know I-Man ment The Invisible Man. I saw a few episodes. It was OK, but not something I'll look for.