sf/f TV development news - 2013

Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

I just looked up Real Humans, and you're right. Sorry about the confusion.

 

Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

I mean standards as in standards-- quality, integrity, maturity, everything. I mean standing up and not letting the lowest common denominator drag you down. The example that jumps into my head at the moment is a letter I read in Time or Newsweek around the turn of the century when there was "debate" about when the 21st century began. Some guy wrote in that he was fully aware that the 21st century began in the year 2001, but since "most people" thought it was the year 2000, he would go along with that. He said he'd rather pretend that the 1st century had 99 years in it than be out of step. That's letting the lowest common denominator drag you down. And so is going along with categorizations of literature derived from the ignorance of the common people.

 

Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

^Okay, then the reason you're not making sense is that you're dead wrong in your core assumptions. It's not "ignorance" to acknowledge that there are no sharp dividing lines between science fiction, fantasy, horror, and other facets of speculative fiction. As Greg pointed out above, there's a wealth of literature that includes aspects of two or more of those genres. That has nothing to do with the ignorance of the masses; it's about the free choice of creators to go wherever their imaginations take them rather than being shackled by simpleminded assumptions about categories. If anything, it's ignorant to assume the genres don't overlap.

(And for the record, "some guy" was right. It's arbitrary to insist a century has to begin in a year starting with 1. Yeah, there was no "year 0," but there wasn't a "year 1" either -- or a year 10 or a year 100 or a year 500. The calendar we use wasn't invented until the sixth century and it was based on an incorrect assumption about the birthdate of Jesus Christ. So it's all completely arbitrary to begin with, not representing any kind of cosmic truth. A calendar is simply a convenience adopted by human society, so if the mass of humanity agrees that a century begins on a certain year, then it's foolish prescriptivism to disagree, to sacrifice clarity in the name of pointless purism.)

 

Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

Cosmic truths set standards which sets a value to an audience and not necessarily to the author. A genre is defined by cosmic truths. Lying about a lie is not neccessarily a truth, but purpetuating that for one's own benefit is hypocriticle, exploitative and wrong. Improving means living up to a higher standard not selling out and down to a lower one to make money. I'm pretty sanguine about sacrificing some clarity for pointless purism.

 

Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

The latest Netflix revivial rumor: Jericho!

I like this idea more than some of the previous candidates (Terra Nova, The River). Skeet Ulrich and Esai Morales are "at liberty." Lennie James may be, if Gotham isn't picked up. Can't remember who else they need to get back - Mayor Gray?

But I think they could recast a lot of the roles or just create new characters and continue where they left off, with an incipient civil war brewing. Kill off half the town in a huge attack to kick things off, and use that as an excuse for the missing characters.

And if CBS and Netflix can play nice with one sci fi series revival, there's another one I can think of that should go next.

 

Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

I give up. Feel free to go back and re-read my prior posts if you like, but I'm done repeating myself.

There are a hundred years in a century. That's the definition of the word. Oh, but I almost forgot-- my worthy opponents are telling me that words don't have definitions.

 

Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

Yes, there are a hundred years in a century, but there's no reason a century can't start with a year ending in 00 and end in one ending in 99. Since there was no "Year 1" any more than there was a "Year 0," there's no real basis for the claim that a century has to begin with '01. It's just an arbitrary belief based in some incorrect assumptions about the origins and history of the calendar.

And it actually makes more sense to start a century at a '00 year instead of an '01 year. It lines up with how we speak of decades. We talk about the Twenties, the Thirties, the Forties, etc. So we count a decade like the Twenties as being 20 to 29, not 21 to 30. Once '30 is reached, it's not the Twenties anymore, it's the Thirties. So if it's customary to begin a decade on a year ending in 0, then logically a century, made up of ten decades, should begin on a year ending in 00. Why should a new century begin one year after a new decade begins?

And there's no real mathematical sense in insisting that a count has to begin with 1 instead of 0. The ten digits of the decimal system are 0 through 9. Once you surpass 9, you add a number to the tens column and start the ones column over again at 0. So starting with 0 is consistent with the way decimal counting is done.

So yes, there are definitions. But your definitions are wrong and based in tight-assed prescriptivism rather than good sense. They're just an excuse to be smug and elitist and call other people idiots. And that's as gross an abuse of language as what you're accusing others of doing.

 

Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

If you guys want something to argue over, figure this one out: Anomaly.

So are the voice actors going to narrate an animated series based on the book plotline for the tablet app? I got a headache just writing that. Why don't they just choose ONE medium and see if the story is any damn good in that medium, first, and then start spinning stuff off as seems appropriate?

Especially since it boasts this amazingly unique premise:

 

Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

More alumni of The Walking Dead join LA Noir (spoilers if you haven't seen the first two seasons...)

 

Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

No, because there was no year zero. That's not how years are counted in the calendar we use. Maybe when you pick up a dozen donuts, you count them from 0 through 11, but most people start counting with 1. Decades and birthdays are counted differently. The calendar goes from 1BCE to 1CE. Therefore the 1st Century goes from 1CE to 100CE. The 2nd Century goes from 101CE to 200CE. Extrapolating forward, we can see that the 21st century goes from 2001CE to 2101CE. The only reason that people think the 21st century begins in the year 2000 is because they see all those zeros come up like on their car odometer and they don't know any better.

 

Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

I wonder if any of the actors from Avatar will be involved in this media blitzkrieg. Not that there's any resemblance whatsoever....

 

Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

You're not even listening, are you? I've already stated twice that there was no year 0. Neither was there a year 1, a year 2, a year 3, etc. The Julian calendar was invented in the year we now call 525 CE, and it was only gradually adopted over the subsequent centuries. There's no evidence that even the Catholic Church used it prior to the tenth century. So that kneejerk "No year 0" argument you're regurgitating is based on the completely false and historically ignorant assumption that there was a "year 1." Which there wasn't. There was no year 1 through 524 inclusive. The calendar started in 525 at the very earliest. Which means that if you insist on defining the start of a century by when people started counting years according to our calendar, then the 21st century wouldn't begin until 2525. It's a silly and meaningless standard to insist upon.

Only in retrospective discussions by historians centuries later. Nobody who actually lived in that time used those dates. The date you refer to retroactively as 1 CE would've been known at the time as 754 AUC in the Roman calendar, 3761 in the Hebrew calendar, 7.17.19.1.4 in the Maya calendar, and Year 57 of Cycle 44, Year of the Monkey, in the Chinese calendar. And it was 641 years before what Muslims (who make up nearly a quarter of the world's population) would call "Year 1."

The calendar is an arbitrary invention used to communicate ideas to human beings. It has no intrinsic cosmic reality. As with any form of communication, the "right" usage is the one that conveys information to the most people. Billions of people commemorated the arrival of 2000 as the start of the new millennium; that was real and meaningful to them. The only people who celebrated 2001 as the start of the millennium were a smattering of lonely prescriptivist pedants like you. A couple of decades ago, I was one of those pedants, but then I learned how ignorant I was, and I'm very glad I outgrew it. It's amazing how fanatical some folks get over something this trivial. My post about this subject on my blog was the single most controversial post I've ever made, which is ridiculous because it's such a fundamentally unimportant subject. (In fact, why am I wasting so much time on it?)

 

Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

I didn't even think of Avatar, which just goes to show how common that premise is in sci fi. As ever, it'll all be in the execution.

 

Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

^^ It's even a one-word name that starts with the letter "A."

And, of course, that makes no sense at all. There is a Year 1, 2 and 3 and so on. You can look them up if you want. Saying that there was no year 1 because the calendar was adopted later is ridiculous. You know better than that.

No kidding? Really? Nobody called an ankylosaurus an ankylosaurus when they were around either; but that's what we call them now and if you call one a turtle you're wrong.

Cool. But we don't use those calendars, do we?

Great. In order to justify your mistake, you've just argued against any form of language or measuring system.

But they were wrong.

We're neither a smattering nor lonely. What you're doing here is acting exactly as I described earlier. Anybody who has high standards, who prefers to be right rather than wrong and who won't be dragged down to the lowest common denominator is a lonely pedant who needs to get a life and move out of their mommy's basement. Why? Because that's all you've got. You're not stupid, Christopher. You know the world is full of intellectuals, scientists, educated lay people and various and sundry others who know how to count to a hundred and can therefore figure out when the 21st century began. But you resort to fanboy politics. Thanks for proving me right again.

In other words, you were right but you let yourself be bullied into taking the low road, like so many others have. So the common people decided the 21st century started a year early and you went along with them. The common people use the word ironic incorrectly, so you redefine the term. The common people don't know what science fiction is, so you include ghosts and goblins. If enough people think a dolphin is a fish, will you want to restructure taxonomy? If enough people tell you that Creationism is a science will you be in favor of teaching it in school? If enough people don't know the difference between "there" and "they're" will you want to rewrite the dictionary? How low are you willing to let your standards fall?

 

Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

^Believe what you like. We're way off topic now, and I'm done.

 

Starz Greenlights ‘Treasure Island’ Prequel Pirate Series

While I'm not a sword & sandals or even a sword & chainmail genres fan it's good to know

[Michael Bay]

4? I hadn't heard. I guess that is why

With Pirates of the Caribbean coming out in 2013 and 2014 at the cinema there are always genre fans worldwide...

source
Unless NBC & Fox are going to do co-productions I think the Starz show will be better since they will do 8 episodes instead of 24 or even 13. I think it goes along with the British way of making TV under 13 episodes for a reason.
Also if Starz complete post production on all 8 episodes of Black Sails before the first even airs then there is no outside influence of ratings and viewers comments on the series other than focus groups watching the pilot.

also mentioned on Starz slate for historical period dramas but not quite fantasy are:

and

2nd source

 

Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

BBC jumps on zombie bandwagon.

I've been wondering why there aren't more zombie shows in the wake of TWD's stunning success. Not that I'm interested in comic takes on the topic. I like my zombie stories as serious as a heart attack caused by having your still-beating heart ripped out and devoured before your eyes.

 

Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

Pilot updatesdeadline.com

NBC

So it's back to being called Revolution? If it's being allowed to start staffing then it's pretty likely to get picked up. Staffing is usually a sign of a pilot getting green llit to series

ABC

the CW

 

Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

Damn, I wanted a TNT update too! I'm really nervous about LA Noir, tho I've seen indications lately that they're casting, so maybe that's a good sign. (Staffing isn't a total guarantee that a series has been picked it.)

NBC: I'm not jazzed about Revolution's premise, but Giancarlo Esposito as a badass would be fun to see. Still hopeful for Do No Harm and Frontier. I guess Midnight Sun and Beautiful People are dead.

ABC should just go ahead and rename the Emmerich drama Dark Horse - good title - I'd like to see that one. Of the three fantasy series competing, 666 Park Ave. is my favorite. Gotham can't go to series because Netflix needs Lennie James for Jericho!

CW: I would be surprised if they pass on The Selection, though they might pick up every series still in contention.

 

Re: sf/f TV development news - 2012

AMC has passed on that cool-sounding Revolutionary War spy drama, ordering pilots for a cop show and a lawyer show instead. Snore.

AMC needs to find something compatible with The Walking Dead so they can capitalize on that audience. Business-as-usual type shows aren't going to hack it. They need to stretch.