worst sci-fi TV series of post 1964

[Reverend]

Heck, the Christopher Nolan BATMAN movies take tons of the liberties with the comics, but nobody cares because they're so good. It's only when a bad superhero fails that the internet blames the failure on deviations from the original comics.

If the Halle Berry CATWOMAN had been a great good time, all but purists would have overlooked the "Patience Price" thing.

Ditto STAR TREK. We overlook "canon violations" in, say, WRATH OF KHAN because it's so marvelously entertaining, but would rip it to shreds for the same if it were less fun.

While we're at it, how about damn near the entirety of the MCU? While they've been consistently faithful to the spirit of the characters and stories they're drawing from, when it comes to the actual plots and narrative, they typically take just the basic concept or even just borrow a title and go in a completely new direction, often cherry-picking elements from disparate sources and just throwing them into the mix.

The Sam Jackson Nick Fury was straight out of the 'Ultimate' books and very different from the classic version most fans were familiar with. Ned as Peter Parker's friend is clearly Ganke Lee from the Miles Morales book. Hell, they took Peggy Carter who in the comics was just a minor background character and turned her into one of the more popular recurring characters of the franchise! 'Planet Hulk' was kinda/sorta jammed into the second act of 'Thor: Ragnarok' to great success. Civil War is only superficially similar to the comic version and it's one of the most popular movies to date. The list of examples is extensive to say the least.

 

[Greg Cox]

Yep. And AGE OF ULTRON bore little or no resemblance to the graphic novel of the same name. And the movie Bucky wasn't Cap's kid sidekick back in the forties, and Hank Pym wasn't a lonely widower with a grown daughter who was a generation older than the current heroes, and Thor isn't a crippled Don Blake who pounds his cane on the ground to turn into Thor, and Bruce Banner wasn't exposed to a gamma-bomb blast while saving Rick Jones, and . . . .

Doesn't matter. They're doing a great job building a brand-new cinematic universe by raiding the Marvel Comics toybox and finding new and creative ways to play with with best bits.

 

[fireproof78]

Ditto STAR TREK. We overlook "canon violations" in, say, WRATH OF KHAN because it's so marvelously entertaining, but would rip it to shreds for the same if it were less fun.

This is pretty much always the case. If TWOK had failed, it would be eviscerated for canon violations.

 

[Spot261]

Exactly, the vast majority of people watch a show to be entertained and just maybe challenged on some level. Despite being overrepresented online those who gauge it's quality in terms of adherence to some imagined strict internal consistency are the minority.

If revisionism in trek were genuinely the issue, TNG would have fell flat. It didn't, despite the very vocal complaints in letter writing campaigns, on USENET and at conventions precisely because those complaints didn't really have any bearing on the actual behaviour of the audience. What mattered was the quality of the work.

Ironically I've noticed that those who are most offended by "canon violations" are often those who don't actually know the show as well as their compatriates who have realised the whole exercise is pointless and just appreciate the creativity. Thus they insist on the sanctity of the world building precisely because they don't know the world being built well enough to realise it's all a house built of cards.

 

[Timewalker]

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!)

What was wrong with Highlander? I enjoyed that series very much, along with its spinoff Highlander: The Raven.

(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 never cared about the special effects in Sliders. I liked the stories, the original four characters, and how they interacted with each other.

What went wrong with the show was a combination of the Kromaggs and the departure of John Rhys-Davies. The show just wasn't interesting or appealing without Arturo.

Especially if the screen then discreetly fades to black or cuts to another scene . . ..

That's still what happens on soap operas, if they're not going to actually show an extended bedroom scene.

As to Salvage 1, it was intended to be tongue-in-cheek, and I rather liked it. It had a lot of heart to it.

I enjoyed Salvage 1, and it pointed out something that should have been addressed decades ago in RL: There is an awful lot of junk in orbit, and it's a hazard to basically everything. Whoever could go up there and collect it would be performing a valuable service.

Honestly, DISCO is the show I wanted ENT to be.

You wanted Enterprise to be utter garbage?

 

[Greg Cox]

I wanted ENT to take some chances and feel like something made in the twenty-first century, not something paced and shot in the same style Trek had been using since the late eighties. I wanted a sense of the Final Frontier as a dangerous place, full of real hazards and struggles and fallible, flesh-and-blood characters. More like TOS or DS9 than TNG, in other words.

ENT was hyped as a fresh, somewhat grittier and more down-to-earth take on STAR TREK, but really wasn't. DISCO is reinventing STAR TREK for modern audiences, which is a lot more exciting. YMMV.

As for SALVAGE-1, I remember liking the original TV-movie, but thinking that it was a bit of a stretch to try to get a weekly series out of it. Mind you, that was long time ago, so my memories of the series are fuzzy.

 

[Reverend]

I wanted ENT to take some chances and feel like something made in the twenty-first century, not something paced and shot in the same style Trek had been using since the late eighties. I wanted a sense of the Final Frontier as a dangerous place, full of real hazards and struggles and fallible, flesh-and-blood characters. More like TOS or DS9 than TNG, in other words.

And they *almost* managed it a few times too. Shockingly, in a single appearance they managed to make the Borg seem dangerous and truly alien for the first time since BoBW. And then there was the time they blundered into Romulan space (or was it Tholian? I forget) and had to scamper away with their seriously outmatched tail between their legs.
I have no clue what the BtS story was on that show, but just going by the long stretches of mediocrity interspersed with the odd flash of brilliance makes me think *somebody* on that show knew what it could be if they tried, but maybe didn't have the clout to alter the overall direction.

What was wrong with Highlander? I enjoyed that series very much, along with its spinoff Highlander: The Raven.

Good for you, I guess...?

 

[Timewalker]

Good for you, I guess...?

That doesn't answer my question. What was the reason you would include Highlander on a list of worst science fiction TV series of post-1964?

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

No, I asked about causality, not the criticisms themselves. How can you demonstrate those criticisms actually led to the show's decline? I've cast myself in no role, for the second time this week you've took my asking a question you can't answer as taking a particular stance.

Its rather simple: audiences were disappointed with what ENT was doing (for among many reasons--the points I covered earlier), criticized and stopped watching it, naturally leading to a drop in its already meager ratings. The apparent middle finger to even trying to be a true prequel to the OS era was something many longtime Trek fans did not appreciate, as it seemed the showrunners were trying to render TOS the "odd show out" by painting a universe that appeared like it followed TNG more than predated TOS.

This is much closer to the observed trend in viewing figures, audience fatigue fits the pattern perfectly well and frankly the hardcore fans who would care about "revisionism" simply don't represent a large enough demographic to make all that much of an impact.

I reject the idea of viewer fatigue for--as pointed out in an earlier post--ST fans abandoned a terrible chapter in franchise history, but four short years later ran to see JJ-Trek. If fan fatigue was the culprit, the rebooted ST would have played to underwhelming moviegoer numbers, since its rational to believe they would not have been willing to give yet more Star Trek a chance if they were truly suffering from audience fatigue. ENT torpedoed the Berman era, but the fans who jumped ship were willing to support more ST--IF it was anything other than what was previously produced.

 

[Valenti]

The bland dark and grittiness didn't help either. It reminded me of TWOK but worse. Stale and stagnant production values with no music. It was a still born. Then the story sucked and they used the Klingons right out of the box plus they had Zephram Cochrane say Kirk's iconic lines. Clever but not right. And Bakula was over exposed.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

The problem with the Stars Wars OT vs Star Trek TOS is that TOS has a much more '60s visual style while the Star Wars OT has much less era specific visual style to it.

I would say the OT did have a style that dates it. For example, many of the Death Star's black consoles bear similarities to theinteriors of Space:1999's Moonbase Alpha (for a few production reasons), which were cool in the 70s, but looked sort of "dated" by the time set design for films like Alien (1979) & Outland (1981) came around. That said, the Star Wars prequels--being set decades before 1977's original film--could not go too far with dazzling tech, otherwise the mere look would have been jarring as a Prequel to a well known universe. I think the interiors of the Trade Federation ships (TPM), the Lars homestead (AOTC) and General Grievous' ship (where Palpatine was being held in ROTS) effortlessly pointed to what was created for the OT, even though the OT's look was considered dated by some observers.

.

A one episode call back is a lot different than the hero ship that we're going to see on a weekly basis.

The difference here is that DS9 and ENT's characters were actively involved with / present on TOS ships, yet it worked. They did not seem out of place because TOS' set designs were sound / visually pleasing enough that they held up--and in some cases, were downright pretty--under the production standards of the 1996 DS9 and 2005 ENT episodes. Not for a moment would I have found it distracting if Sisko and company spent a season somehow forced to work in the TOS era because that design environment was so iconic and attractive that it did not come off as antiquated as say, Forbidden Planet when that film was viewed 20 or 30 years after its premiere.

Enterprise was not solely responsible for the end of Berman era Trek, the drop off of viewers and fans was already starting during Voyager.

...but VOY still managed to get 7 seasons. Something must have worked to keep enough viewers around to justify renewing it season after season.

I'd put Season 4 right up there with some of the best seasons of the entire franchise,.

That's a pretty big statement when one considers seasons one or two of TOS, or 3 - 5 of TNG.

 

[Reverend]

That doesn't answer my question. What was the reason you would include Highlander on a list of worst science fiction TV series of post-1964?

I very specifically did not.

 

[Vger23]

The biggest argument for me that proves "franchise fatigue" was a real thing with ENT's failure:

When it premiered...I barely made it through S1 (didn't see all of them, that's for certain). I watched none of S2, virtually none of S3 and maybe 4-5 episodes (MAAAAYYYYYBE) from S4. I just couldn't stomach it. I didn't hate it or spend endless hours on the inter webs bitching and moaning about it. I just found it bored me to tears.

Now that there's been 15 years or so of separation, I finally did a start-to-finish watch on Netflix, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Like, I actually find it easier to watch that TNG and VOY currently, which seem to be cookie-cutter formulaic stories that are entertaining but largely mediocre.

To me, that means a great deal of my rejection factor around ENT. was basically that I was just sick to death of the same old format, pacing, character archetypes, themes, etc playing out over 700+ hours. I think it's one of the reasons that DSC resonates with me but Orville really doesn't (I like it, but it's not compelling to me at all). Orville is more of the same, while DSC warts and all is at least an attempt at something different.

As for worst sci-fi show of all time? Yikes...there's been a few. I can't believe Original BSG is on anyone's list, though. There are infinitely worse shows than that out there. Hell, Galactica 1980 is multiples worse than BSG TOS for chrissake.

 

[JD]

I would say the OT did have a style that dates it. For example, many of the Death Star's black consoles bear similarities to theinteriors of Space:1999's Moonbase Alpha (for a few production reasons), which were cool in the 70s, but looked sort of "dated" by the time set design for films like Alien (1979) & Outland (1981) came around. That said, the Star Wars prequels--being set decades before 1977's original film--could not go too far with dazzling tech, otherwise the mere look would have been jarring as a Prequel to a well known universe. I think the interiors of the Trade Federation ships (TPM), the Lars homestead (AOTC) and General Grievous' ship (where Palpatine was being held in ROTS) effortlessly pointed to what was created for the OT, even though the OT's look was considered dated by some observers.

.

I guess for me that for me the OT designs just don't scream 70s/80s for me the way TOS screams '60s a the top of it's metaphorical lungs.

The difference here is that DS9 and ENT's characters were actively involved with / present on TOS ships, yet it worked. They did not seem out of place because TOS' set designs were sound / visually pleasing enough that they held up--and in some cases, were downright pretty--under the production standards of the 1996 DS9 and 2005 ENT episodes. Not for a moment would I have found it distracting if Sisko and company spent a season somehow forced to work in the TOS era because that design environment was so iconic and attractive that it did not come off as antiquated as say, Forbidden Planet when that film was viewed 20 or 30 years after its premiere.

The only reason the TOS stuff worked there is because of the history and nostalgia behind them, there's no way they could have been introduced as totally new designs and not been laughed off the screen.

...but VOY still managed to get 7 seasons. Something must have worked to keep enough viewers around to justify renewing it season after season.

I don't know about anybody else, but I was already starting to get a bit tired of the same old TNG styles stories by the end of Voy. By the time we got to the start of ENT, second season of ENT I had had enough and stopped watching until Season 4.

That's a pretty big statement when one considers seasons one or two of TOS, or 3 - 5 of TNG.

I'd put the the Andorian/Romulan, Vulcan, and Augments arcs right up there with the best of TNG.

 

[Timewalker]

I very specifically did not.

You said:

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!)

Okay, you didn't say it's specifically on your list for the worst SF TV show since 1964. What you did say is that the merit of Highlander utterly escapes you.

I would like to know why.

 

[Greg Cox]

Interesting. I've never seen Space: Above and Beyond, but my impression was that it was highly-regarded in some circles. And I know that Highlander has a cult following, many of whom insist that the TV show was better than the movies. (Not a high bar, I know, except for the first one.)

 

[Timewalker]

Interesting. I've never seen Space: Above and Beyond, but my impression was that it was highly-regarded in some circles. And I know that Highlander has a cult following, many of whom insist that the TV show was better than the movies. (Not a high bar, I know, expect for the first one.)

Have you seen any of the Highlander series?

It was light-years better than the movies, went 6 seasons, and gave us some wonderful and intriguing characters like Methos (the oldest Immortal; over 5000 years old and was one of the group of raiders that became the basis for the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse) and Joe Dawson - the Vietnam vet-turned-Watcher who becomes friends with Duncan. And who can forget Roger Daltrey, who played the dashing and charismatic Hugh Fitzcairn?

Last, but not least, Amanda (played by Elizabeth Gracen) was spun off into her own show, Highlander: The Raven.

I get that not everyone's into the sword fighting. It does get a little silly when you think of how the characters always seem able to pull out a sword from the lining of whatever they're wearing, and it's not at all noticeable that they've been carrying it.

But that's easily ignored in favor of the overall story, and the series addresses some interesting issues regarding personal ethics and morality. A lot of the people who became Immortal just wanted to get on with their day and would have preferred not to get mixed up in the Game, thankyouverymuch.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I don't think it's just franchise fatigue with Enterprise. It's part of it.

If you came back to it later and enjoyed it more, I wouldn't assume it's because you were overly harsh on it back then out of franchise fatigue. Maybe you were younger and wanted a father departure from TNG-lite after Voyager and didn't get it until season 3, but now you want something more cozy and nostalgic. (The Orville effect).

There aren't a lot of bad scifi shows I watched long enough to be able to fairly say they never got better, to be perfectly honest.

 

[Valenti]

Earth:Final Conflict was one I could never understand along with Alien Nation. Odyssey Five looked very stupid.

 

[Skipper]

I understand that "worst" is a subjective term, but if you put Enterprise and Highlander (two competent shows, at least from a technical point of view) in the same league of The Starlost or The Phoenix, well, I suggest you do not leave your daily job to become a professional tv critic.

It remembers me how, when the IMBD boards still existed, invariably someone wrote that some (perfectly ok) movie was "THE WORST MOVIE EVER!!!!". When someone asked them how they can say that particular movie was the worst between all the millions movies made in the world from Lumière's L'Arrivée d'un train en gare de La Ciotat to today, the answer was always a variation of "BECAUSE I SAID SO!!!!".