Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by Temis the Vorta, Oct 10, 2011.
Syfy has given the greenlight to Ascension. From Deadline:
I was just reading through the description of the TPBs of I, Zombie and now I' starting to wonder how true to them the show is going to be. The comic apparently has a "60s swinging ghost", a mummy and a were-terrier as major characters. The second one also talked about a mad scientist, and monster hunters dealing with a "vampire problem". So far the info about the show hasn't mentioned any supernatural elements besides the main character, and she works in a morgue instead of being a grave digger like in the comics.
Warriors of Oz, Ringworld, and Childhood's End, sound like Mini-Series, and the article says This new Mini-Series Ascension is the first announced Mini-Series since 2009. Does that mean those other 3 have been in development (Hell?) since at least 2009?
Also, does this mean, that those 3 Mini-Series have now been kick-started prior to this new announcement?
I don't know any of the Subject matter, but, they all sound cool (especially Ringworld, I've always wanted to see exactly what Ringworld looked like [and hear fans that know the text judge the accuracy of it])
Alice was the last Syfy miniseries to air, which was in 2009. They've been looking to get back into minis and have put a number of minis into development, Ascension being the first to get a greenlight. They haven't all been in development since 2009, though. Warriors of Oz, Ringworld, and Childhood's End were announced as being in development last year.
told me that the others were greenlighted prior to 2009, meaning Development Hell.
A greenlight gets a series out of development and into production. In other words, this is the first miniseries they've actually ordered into production since 2009. The other minis were put into development last year, but haven't yet been greenlit.
Right, and the other three have been in development since before now, meaning since at least 2009, no?
No, you're missing the point. "Greenlighted" does not mean "put into development" as you're assuming. As OOMVM said, it means taken out of development and actually put into production. "Development," in case it's unclear, means exploring the idea on paper only -- series outline, pilot script, episode premises, concept art, etc. "Production" means the process of getting it onto the screen -- staffing, casting, building sets, making props and costumes, and actually filming episodes.
Thus, Syfy has put several miniseries into development since 2009, but it has not greenlighted a miniseries for production until now.
Ah, OK, thanks.
I thought I had seen the terminology of "Greenlighted for Development" used for Pilot Considerations
Do Neverland (aired in 2011) and Treasure Island (aired in 2012) not count?
I'm still not recovered from Adama taking a leisurely 5 minutes out of the pilot to crash a brick through that Cylon's face till it looked like a bloodied doughnut.
Those were acquisitions rather than minis actually produced for Syfy, the same way shows like Bitten, Continuum, and Lost Girl are acquisitions while Defiance is produced for Syfy, although Neverland did premiere on Syfy a few days before it premiered on Sky Movies (its primary producer).
Come to think of it, The Phantom was developed primarily for Syfy, even though it premiered in Canada first, as was Riverworld. Those two are often referred to as TV movies even though they're of miniseries length because they ended up being aired on Syfy in a single night each. So I guess Deadline's assertion that Alice was the last Syfy miniseries needs some asterisks next to it.
The miniseries sound promising-- Ringworld and Childhood's End are two of my favorite books-- but the characterization of Defiance and nuBSG as "thought provoking" and Haven and Warehouse 13 as "light" does not bode well at all.
I don't watch Haven, but if you don't think Warehouse 13 is light, you may want to get your eyes checked. Warehouse 13 is about as "dark" as the 80's Buck Rogers.
You need to take your own advice. While it is mostly a light show, it's had some very dark, powerful, and emotionally intense moments. I defy anyone to watch the final moments of "Emily Lake" and call them superficial and fluffy.
It would be a huge mistake to assume a show can be only light or only dark. The best shows are a mix of both, just as life is a mix of both. Deep Space Nine was the grittiest, most intense, least optimistic Star Trek series, but it was also frequently the funniest Star Trek series.
A few dark moments does not make the entire show "dark". I stand by my comment. Even Buck Rogers had some dark moments.
^And I think that's an invalid comparison. Buck Rogers was cheesy and stupid. Warehouse 13 is fun, yes, but much more intelligent and rich.
And I wasn't saying it made the entire show dark. My whole point is that it's superficial and simplistic to try to reduce an entire show to a single adjective at all. If a show can be entirely characterized by a single syllable, then it can't be a very good show.
Then maybe you should be directing your posts to either RJD or the article he was indirectly referencing with the overly broad characterizations of "light" and "dark", because my comments were made in the context of his view on the subject.
Space Opera doesn't have to be grim and brutal. We can have lighter fun space operas. A lot of TOS would be a light/fun space opera. And a lot of Berman Trek is a mix between light and serious fun.
Heck, that used to be a given. These days we use "space opera" as a catchall term for any space-based SF, but until the '90s or so, it was generally a somewhat derogatory term for a particular type of SF exemplified by the work of E.E. "Doc" Smith and Edmond Hamilton: light, fluffy, larger-than-life adventure stories featuring straightforward conflicts between pure good and pure evil and not a lot of focus on character development. Essentially, something like Star Wars.
Separate names with a comma.