Which one?
Loved most of Torchwood, Enterprise ranged from good to great, and the original BSG and Buck Rogers were cheesy fun.
worst sci-fi TV series of post 1964
- Thread starter jefferiestubes8
- Start date
The only difference between Buck Rogers and any 70s-born TV private eye with a wry smile was that it was in sci-fi trappings. Not good.
Whatever. You enjoyed that stuff--I did not. ENT was misguided, and the final nail in the coffin of the Berman era of Trek for good reason. No wonder the hardcore Trek fanbase abandoned it, ultimately leading to the theatrical reboot. Torchwood never had a reason to be--other than an attempt at cashing in on the parent series' popularity, running on the worst of Russell T. Davies' impulses.
^There's a world of difference from something not being your cup of tea and something being objectivity "the worst". ENT may have been deeply flawed on a number of levels and something of a low point for the entire franchise, but putting it in the same category of the truly turgid, hackneyed and painfully cheap, minimum effort crap that used to populate The Science Fiction Channel's post Sunday midnight timeslots way back in the day is hyperbole at best and disingenuous at worst.
Personally I'm finding it hard to think of any specific examples. Generally speaking I tend to avoid and promptly forget about shows that look legitimately terrible. Conversely I have a hard time writing-off the ones that started promising only to later take a nosedive (Earth: Final Conflict, Andromeda, Falling Skies, SeaQuest DSV, Heroes etc.) since the beginning alone means they at least had *some* merit.
Hell, I've even seen some people claim to actually enjoy the likes of 'War of the Worlds', 'Highlander' and 'Space, Above and Beyond', so maybe even they have some merit (even if it utterly escapes me!)
Personally I'm finding it hard to think of any specific examples. Generally speaking I tend to avoid and promptly forget about shows that look legitimately terrible. Conversely I have a hard time writing-off the ones that started promising only to later take a nosedive (Earth: Final Conflict, Andromeda, Falling Skies, SeaQuest DSV, Heroes etc.) since the beginning alone means they at least had *some* merit.
Hell, I've even seen some people claim to actually enjoy the likes of 'War of the Worlds', 'Highlander' and 'Space, Above and Beyond', so maybe even they have some merit (even if it utterly escapes me!)
Farscape escaped me, so did Earth Final Conflict, but the likes of Buck Rogers (did a lot more than a private eye) and Space Rangers were my absolute favs, along with Voyagers. ENT was luke warm watered down BBC. There's also been a host of time travel shows like Seven Days and Morning Edition (I believe it was called) that to me weren't so hot but I feel the same way about Timeless, so..
THE STARLOST
[troll type="complete"]Almost Human[/troll]
I watched Almost Human but other than the chemistry between the two leads, I thought it was an underwhelming show that had potential but never really tried to get there.
I never understood all the people who lost their minds over it getting canceled. There seems to be a vocal crowd that acts as if every genre show getting canceled is the end of the world, and then suddenly that show is treated as if it's one of the greatest programs of all time.
It's okay with me. I actually got a "Like" on a seven-year-old post. (Thanks, Turtletrekker!)Did you guys REALLY post to a SEVEN YEAR OLD THREAD - which prior to the last two posts above last saw a post in 2011? Wow someone really went to the last page on the Threads list.
I thought the first season was actually good. But after that, it went downhill.
There was a much better show called Invasion on abc that premiered the same tv season as Surface did. Both had a water based theme. I remember Invasion because the story was set in a post hurricane south. Coincidentally, hurricane Katrina hit shortly before the show's scheduled premier.
Earth 2 and Terra Nova are two decent sci fi shows that come to mind. They were both about human settlers, one, in a new world; the other, the same world but in the past.
Threshold was caca just for the science alone, as one poster said (and this kind of show can be on CBS Prime, but not Discovery?)
Considering what happened to Voyager, I agree.
Threshold was caca just for the science alone, as one poster said (and this kind of show can be on CBS Prime, but not Discovery?)
Because THRESHOLD did so well on CBS Prime, ratings-wise? It was cancelled after one season. Who knows? That may be one reason the Powers That Be decided that regular CBS was not the right home for DISCO.
The decision to put a show on a mainstream network, on cable, on a premium channel, or streaming has less to do with the quality of the show (let alone the accuracy of its science!) than with demographics and target audiences and such. When has CBS Prime ever aired a successful space-adventure series, let alone one that lasted more than one season? LOST IN SPACE back in the sixties?
CBS's (mostly older) audience likes police procedurals and such. An edgy new version of STAR TREK doesn't really fit with the rest of their programming. THRESHOLD was an experiment that didn't work.
I have to echo what so many have said in this thread before me: "Cleopatra 2525". Good lord.
I feel it's too easy to lump in mediocre shows with bad shows. All of the above were mediocre, but they each had something to them. "Future Cop" tried. So did "Robocop: The Series".
Franke did some. The composer tally:
Joseph LoDuca (1)
Christopher Franke (7)
Joseph Conlan (1)
Randy Miller (14)
I remember when Discovery started, there being an article on CNN Business about the reason that they went with Discovery being streamed was to do with CBS wanting a known name to launch CBS All Access around so it stood a chance against the established streaming services such as Netflix and Amazon Prime. I believe it is seen as the start of a larger move to take all CBS new programming on-line.
As for worst science-fiction show of the modern era, I would go with a series in the late 90s on the BBC called 'Invasion: Earth' about dimension switching aliens who infested Human beings in the Blitz and the modern era. It was the BBCs attempt to break into the American market of slickly produced sci-fi and to improve the image of the British Military (who contributed largely to the series in advice and resource). It achieved neither because it was awful and bad. Really, really bad.
The first season of "SeaQuest" was really good. It started to go off the rails in season two, then fell apart in season three. Didn't even have a series finale, just a random episode that was setting up things to come.
SeaQuest also had what I call the "Babylon 5 Problem", where they were using computer graphics at a time where it still had some room for improvement, making it hard for the shows to gain traction. Sliders had similar issues. (Sliders is another example of a show that started relatively strong, but went of the rails after a season or two.)
I actually think that Sliders would be a great show to reboot on something like Netflix. I think that we've only recently reached the point where special effects can to the show's premise justice. Imagine Sliders with the same level of acting, set design and special effects as the recent reboot of Lost in Space. While I would like to see something similar happen to SeaQuest, I don't think it has the range of possibilities that Sliders does. I'd probably ditch the Kromaggs, though.
I can look passed the computer graphics, but I can't look passed how comically bad they thought the the internet would look, sound, and work in the future.
Last edited:
I had totally forgotten about Invasion: Earth just goes to show how much of an impression it made or not.
Similar threads
