I stopped reading at number 10 when I realized the writer of the article hadn't actually watched these shows...
"and his only companion was the holographic representation of a computer back home that only he could see."
Al was not a holographic representation of Ziggy... Sam used his brain wave pattern along with Al's when he created the super computer known as Ziggy. This allowed Ziggy to transmit Al's conciousness directly to whatever time period Sam's conciousness occupied. Al remained in the facility in the future the entire time and was only visible to Sam due to a direct mindlink. He appeared holographic as a result (having things pass thru him etc) but isn't what we consider a hologram like the Doctor from Voyager. A better analogy would be 'imaginary friend'
That said, certain scenes on the show contradict this by having Al see or hear things when Sam isn't anywhere around.
I've always been a fan of Leap. Word from Scott Bakula is the creator is currently writing the script for a movie. I say it's about time they brought Sam home!
Edit to add: Yeah time travel alone doesn't make it Sci-Fi. If that was the case you'd have to include show's like Felicity as Sci-Fi.
Maestro Mavius - Infinity
Capt. Biohazrd - PCSAR
Talsor Tech - Talsorian Guard
Keep Calm & Chive On!
Quote:
Indeed there were quite a lot of "Sci-tech" things going on in The Prisoner, but to classify as Sci-Fi, would also suggest that The Man from U.N.C.L.E and all the James Bond movies were too IMHO.
|
Originally Posted by Father Xmas
Probably because CCTV surveillance wasn't widespread yet in the UK when The Prisoner first ran.
Then there's "Rover", a bubble like sentry that rises from the ocean and captures those trying to escape. The high tech infrastructure that's hidden under the guise of a low tech town. |
http://www.scene-and-heard.com/cov/covsig.jpg
Quote:
Weak Top Ten there wasn't anything with Stargate and Babylon 5.
|
Originally Posted by Sevenpenny
of all time.....according to Newsarama....
link I dunno about the order of some of the shows.....like Lost being in the top 5 and X-Files being pegged at number 7???? |
Never play another NcSoft game, If you feel pride for our game, then it as well, I Superratz am Proud of all of you Coh people, Love, Friendship will last for a lifetime.
Global:@Greenflame Ratz
Main Toons:Super Ratz, Burning B Radical, Green Flame Avenger, Tunnel Ratz, Alex Magnus
Quote:
While i'll run with the idea its not a very good list, id say it already fulfilled it's purpose. people read it and are kvetching/talking about it.
|
Originally Posted by Rock_Crag
Agreed. A list with no explanations for their choices is not a very good list at all.
|
Quote:
While I prefer Dr. Who personally, it's a pretty tough row to hoe to claim it has had anywhere near the impact of Star Trek. Star Trek is a major institution. It has over a dozen feature films associated with the franchise. Everyone, and honestly I do mean everyone, knows what Star Trek is. I've had friends who have only recently become acquainted with Dr. Who owing to the new series and BBC America. |
Originally Posted by Zikar
That's arguable, since Doctor Who was shipped to many countries in it's original run and still is to this day.
Additionally, the Guinness Book of World Records gave it the record of most successful Sci-Fi show of all time based on "broadcast ratings, DVD sales, book sales and iTunes traffic." As for whether Time Travel makes something Sci-Fi. No. No it doesn't, especially if the means for Time Travel isn't a machine of some sort, but rather a vague supernatural effect. There is far more magic that "science" in Lost. |
Also, not to be unkind to the UK, but success there and success in the U.S. are a bit different in scale.
Too many alts to list.
Quote:
Heck, I don't know if there was a time travel story before A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, but that certainly wasn't Science Fiction. It could well be the grandaddy of the time travel genre.
|
Originally Posted by MaestroMavius
Edit to add: Yeah time travel alone doesn't make it Sci-Fi. If that was the case you'd have to include show's like Felicity as Sci-Fi. |
Too many alts to list.
Quote:
Contrary to popular American assumption, we are not the center of the universe.
|
Originally Posted by docbuzzard
Also, not to be unkind to the UK, but success there and success in the U.S. are a bit different in scale.
|
Quote:
What does this have to do with doc's post?
|
Originally Posted by Forbin_Project
Contrary to popular American assumption, we are not the center of the universe.
|
Quote:
I suppose it's the general inference that since it wasn't successful in the US, it's success was small and the only way to have great success is to be successful in the US.|
Originally Posted by Clouded
What does this have to do with doc's post?
|
I'd like to find viewing figures for Star Trek actually, but I can't.
Edit: Not that I want to get involved in this argument particularly, I love Star Trek too!
Quote:
The popularization of science fiction as "sci-fi" was pretty mainstream in the 60s, so yes, those spy shows, along with The Avengers, count. (A staple of the subgenre was of course the super-genius scientist with a sci-fi invention.)|
Originally Posted by Scene_EU
Indeed there were quite a lot of "Sci-tech" things going on in The Prisoner, but to classify as Sci-Fi, would also suggest that The Man from U.N.C.L.E and all the James Bond movies were too IMHO.
|
The Prisoner compressed a lot of science fiction elements into its setting, and many episodes revolved around sci-fi tropes, e.g. brain-scanning (A. B. and C.) and artificial intelligence (The General). And satirizing the Surveillance State decades in advance is a pretty good trick.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by docbuzzard
Heck, I don't know if there was a time travel story before A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, but that certainly wasn't Science Fiction. It could well be the grandaddy of the time travel genre.
|
I'd agree that The Prisoner probably just squeezes in to Sci-Fi.
Actually, I say it's more Sci-Fi than Quantum Leap.
Quote:
Which of course I never implied, but don't let that get in your way. The U.S. has roughly five times the population of the U.K. On that basis alone, success in the U.S. is appreciably bigger than success in the U.K. |
Originally Posted by Forbin_Project
Contrary to popular American assumption, we are not the center of the universe.
|
Not to mention the dozen or more feature films which are on one side of the ledger, but not the other. There have been Dr. Who films, but I think the total is two or three. None of them were exactly smash hits.
Again, I actually quite prefer Dr. Who. I actually dislike ST:TOS. However I am capable of seeing which franchise has had more of a cultural and SciFi impact. This isn't nationalism as you might wish to imply. It's simple fact.
Too many alts to list.
Quote:
I would say both are safely in the realm of Sci-Fi, though I would disagree that Quantum Leap is less so. Then again both are cases in which the science fiction tends to be a peripheral feature of the story rather than anything central.
|
Originally Posted by Zikar
I'd agree that The Prisoner probably just squeezes in to Sci-Fi.
Actually, I say it's more Sci-Fi than Quantum Leap. |
Too many alts to list.
Quote:
Interesting. Never head of it. As Connecticut Yankee dated from 1889, that would give Wells the edge.
|
Originally Posted by TrueGentleman
H.G. Wells wrote a time-travel short story "The Chronic Argonauts" in 1888 (and then obviously his novel The Time Machine several year later).
|
Too many alts to list.
The first Time Travel fiction story where future things travel into the past that I'm aware of is 'Memoirs of the Twentieth Century' written in 1733. However this one's a bit twitchy because it's not people being sent back, but objects. Specifically letters arriving two hundred years before they were sent. I'm not sure this counts or not.
Listing the top 10 Sci-Fi shows is a bit of a boondoggle. Without a precise definition of what is Sci-Fi and what is not, and without an equally precise definition of how something becomes 'top', it's all meaningless. And I bet you that it would take a long time to come to a consensus on what is 'Sci-Fi'. Is Godzilla Sci-Fi? What about 'The Two-Headed Man'? Ooooh, how about 'Iceman'?
It would be like listing the top 10 artists, and having Picasso, Monet, Grell, and Willich all appear on the list. Without any context what the heck did it mean?
Quote:
Which means absolutely nothing since shows get aired globally in countries all around the world.|
Originally Posted by docbuzzard
Which of course I never implied, but don't let that get in your way. The U.S. has roughly five times the population of the U.K. On that basis alone, success in the U.S. is appreciably bigger than success in the U.K.
|
We won't even mention the number "American" shows are in reality made in Canada.
Quote:
It sounds like it was more concerned with futurology than the mechanics and/or repercussions of objects/people moving backward/forward in time. Incidentally, it postdates Gulliver's Travels (1726), a fantastical satire that has some science fiction tropes (e.g. the mad scientists of the flying island of Laputa).
|
Originally Posted by WildClaw
The first Time Travel fiction story where future things travel into the past that I'm aware of is 'Memoirs of the Twentieth Century' written in 1733. However this one's a bit twitchy because it's not people being sent back, but objects. Specifically letters arriving two hundred years before they were sent. I'm not sure this counts or not.
|
Quote:
Yes, and I think it is well known that Hollywood generally has the biggest reach in that regard. |
Originally Posted by Forbin_Project
Which means absolutely nothing since shows get aired globally in countries all around the world.
|
Quote:
| We won't even mention the number "American" shows are in reality made in Canada. |
Though you seem to have a fixation on nationalism. I really don't much care where the show came from. The fact is that Star Trek is the bigger franchise. Though since you did mention Canada, they do generally watch much of the products of U.S. studios also, which makes for a bigger North American market.
Too many alts to list.
Well then we should start with some things that we all agree on...
Dr. Who, Star Trek, and StarGate are definitely Sci-Fi and all definitely belong on a list of top 10 Sci-Fi shows
What are characteristics these all have in common and what makes them worthy of those spots regardless of whatever else we base it on?
Also we should be clear on whether it is Star Trek the universe or a particular series that is in that universe. This is important in all of these because...
SGU has almost nothing in common with SG-1
Dr Who of 2005 relaunch, while similar to the pre-relaunch Dr Who is not altogether the same and it is not the same as when it first launched or the movie based on it
Similarly Star Trek TOS isn't the same as TNG nor are any of the movies the same as the series nor are either of those like DS9, Voyager, or Enterprise.
As a matter of opinion as this is. I would not place TOS the series in the category of top 10 as a whole, however when we consider the greatness of certain episode I would allow that to slide. You don't need to watch all of TOS to get why it should be consider top 10 or that it is, on the other hand DS9 is in my opinion the most epic story ever told in the film media with each episode adding to the over all series and without every episode you lose why it is great. Then there is TNG which each episode is great, but they each stand on their own and that combined in one package makes it a great series. Voyager combines the adventure of TOS, the stand alone for the most part episodes of TNG, while still having certain episodes that without there'd be no over arching story which that makes it great in it's own right. Enterprise, as much as I like it, a series that was canceled before it's time with some many lose ends makes it fall from any individualized top 10 list.
So in a sense by exploring Star Trek we can see that the way in the story is told is not a defining factor, but rather that the entire story is complete and without any loose ends in it's package is a necessity to be considered top 10.
What about SG-1 vs SGA? They're essentially the same show, but I would say that SGA is not as good as SG-1... why? Maybe it has to do with chemistry or they just have a better over arching story...I certainly don't think longevity is the key difference as that would be kinda a crappy measurement and show a bit of shallowness, but i am sure it is in some people's decision. I also wouldn't put it so much as overarching story, but rather that is an effect of the world around them just seems more alive and interesting, but that boils back down to it's just the universe that makes it so, but we're talking the difference between SG-1 and SGA... It can't be the universe that makes a series good because then these would be equal. Maybe it's not so much the universe but rather how the series relates that universe to the viewers.
And this relates to the Star Trek series and the Dr Who series as well... I would say that what makes a great sci-fi series based on what I think about all theses series is not so much whether i like them or not or whether their story is the best or not but rather their stories and characters seem to make their universe more relate able to me the watcher...
But what makes each Sci-Fi?
Why is StarGate sci-fi?
Why is Dr Who sci-fi?
Why is Star Trek sci-fi?
Why is it that these series are sci-fi definitely in our heads while I'd never call something like James Bond, Flubber, or Kate and Leopold Sci-fi?
With James Bond it's because the gadgets are more or less magic items. They work. They aren't really explained. It's not why anyone watches James Bond.
Flubber explains how flubber works and while it is the main star of the movie...I don't really see how it can be considered sci-fi... perhaps someone else can explain it?
Kate and Leopold uses science and explains how a worm hole travels through time and gives all this explanation of how it works, but it's not the star of the movie. The star of the movie is that characters love each other and blah blah blah... The time travel just facilitates x thing to happen, but plays little role beyond that.
It seems that the key thing in science fiction is
It Involves Technology or aliens
Technology is Explained
That technology or aliens are important
I think those three things if I look into just about everything i consider sci-fi will at least have those 3 things...
Quote:
Were you able to post that with a straight face? |
Originally Posted by docbuzzard
Though you seem to have a fixation on nationalism.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by docbuzzard
Which of course I never implied, but don't let that get in your way. The U.S. has roughly five times the population of the U.K. On that basis alone, success in the U.S. is appreciably bigger than success in the U.K.
|
Nationalism has very little to do with the entertainment industry. The audiences have always been a global community. Radio, t.v., or movies you can't stop the signal.
Quote:
I thought that was all of them (nice job Hollywood unions). Well some of the USA summer shows are filmed in the US, with some in the actual cities the series is suppose to take place in.
|
Originally Posted by Forbin_Project
We won't even mention the number "American" shows are in reality made in Canada.
|
Father Xmas - Level 50 Ice/Ice Tanker - Victory
$725 and $1350 parts lists --- My guide to computer components
Tempus unum hominem manet
Quote:
Very easily in fact. Your inherent desire to accuse others of it befuddles you ability to interpret objective facts. |
Originally Posted by Forbin_Project
Were you able to post that with a straight face?
|
Quote:
|
Your post not mine. Nationalism has very little to do with the entertainment industry. The audiences have always been a global community. Radio, t.v., or movies you can't stop the signal.
|
Too many alts to list.
I think a "top 10" list for something so diversely awesome as sci-fi t.v. is a fruitless effort. For sci-fi lovers, it's like picking a favorite son/daughter. My top 20 list for this would fluctuate wildly on the whims of nostalgia. Some days I would defend fiercely the undeniable win of The Six Million Dollar Man and Space 1999 and other days they wouldn't even be remembered in discussing the topic. There are perhaps hundreds of legitimate "honorable mentions" for this category, including unsuccessful commercial projects that were very strong artistically (see Shawn Cassidy's American Gothic.)
Quote:
I agree!|
Originally Posted by Forbin_Project
Too bad. Your personal preferences don't change the simple fact that there are dozens of Sci-Fi shows that are actually far more deserving of consideration and belong on that list more than Lost. Hell I'd say that at least half the shows on that list need to be replaced. The posters criteria are blatantly biased and offers no explanation as to how the list was compiled other than his own personal opinion.
In no particular order off the top of my head Star Trek (all) Battlestar Galactica (all) Stargate (all) Babylon 5 X-Files Farscape Firefly Doctor Who Futurama SeaQuest Time Tunnel Red Dwarf Blake 7 UFO Space 1999 Quantum Leap Sliders The Invaders My Favorite Martian Dark Angel Andromeda Quark Eureka Space - Above and Beyond V (all) Lost in Space Alien Nation Thunderbirds Starblazers Earth 2 Max Headroom Ghost in the Shell Sanctuary Mork and Mindy Outlaw Star Planet of the Apes Logan's Run Earth Final Conflict Trigun Pheonix Aeon Flux War of the Worlds The Jetsons Flash Gordon (all) Buck Rogers Fireball XL5 Gundam (all) Power Rangers (all Eng and Japanese) Ark II Dirty Pair Mutant X Salvage 1 Lexx Farscape Starhunter Space Precinct Starman Time Trax Robocop Threshold Automan 6 Million Dollar Man Bionic Woman Earth: Final Conflict Fantastic Journey Moonbase 3 Cowboy Bebop Macross The list goes on and on. |
But I would add http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8N8CD7gN2MA&NR=1 if you have macross and other Anime in there, you might as well have their grandaddy. Astroboy too but that was never my thing...
This Starblazers though... The Americanised version of Space Battle Cruiser/ship Yamato was (along with syndicated Outer limits, Twilight Zone, Star Trek Original series and the original Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica and the odd olde timey sci-fi movie) pretty much
all the half decent quality Sci-Fi a kid from the 70's got in North America. Certainly it was the ONLY one with an overall planned out story arc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Na0-n...eature=related Cleaned up version in original Japanese with computer animation.
Yes, This beats even the vaunted and much loved Bab 5 to the "Breaking the episodid mold" table. Unlike modern mysterious story arcs... This one kept it nice and simple.
Save the planet. I'm sure it was the early 70's as I was a wee kid. I am now 41. I love Doctor Who mybrit pals. But he was very episodic back then. Kinda still is... Last two doc's are a little more sensitive to the story arc thing and though Baker and Pertwee are my fav Doctors I do like the new guys.Cheers all!
Wow I just recalled they did a modern movie for it. Sheets and giggles, I must find a english subtitle version of this. lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EtAl...eature=related
Better clips... withought the strangely familiar pop song... ;p http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fQoh...eature=related
Additionally, the Guinness Book of World Records gave it the record of most successful Sci-Fi show of all time based on "broadcast ratings, DVD sales, book sales and iTunes traffic."
As for whether Time Travel makes something Sci-Fi. No. No it doesn't, especially if the means for Time Travel isn't a machine of some sort, but rather a vague supernatural effect.
There is far more magic that "science" in Lost.